Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

MERGED: Alligator Airways Grounded

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

MERGED: Alligator Airways Grounded

Old 10th Jun 2012, 02:41
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CASA approved CPs that met the absolute bare minimumrequirements to hold the position.
What else should CASA do when an applicant for a document achieves the requirement to hold that document? Add further requirements because you want to. I was issued my AME licence when I reached the minimum requirements, using your logic I shouldn't have been.
The biggest question perhaps should be why CASA didn't act sooner
.

Gday Baron Beeza, in what way could they have acted earlier?

Last edited by blackhand; 10th Jun 2012 at 02:42. Reason: Speeling
blackhand is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 03:02
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gday Baron Beeza, in what way could they have acted earlier?
A good question and one for which I have no answer.
In NZ a company attracting comments on a public forum such as this one would have had at least one visit from a CAA audit team.
Similar events here have often reflected poorly on all involved, the Air Adventures crash on approach to ChCh comes to mind.

Was Alligator under close CASA scrutiny at the time ? I am imagining that they would have been..

I see many young pilots trying to take unserviceable aircraft flying, when the question is asked some have replied that it is serviceable until they are told otherwise. I always thought the C of A was subject to a satisfactory pilot's pre-flight inspection. Many of these guys may just be checking oil, fuel and air in the tyres.

While I am still coming down hard on the pilot, because I understood he knew the turbocharger was faulty, I am worried about the others.
Chief Engineer, Chief Pilot and Ops Manager, Owner etc.

If it was a culture issue then how was this Pilot allowed to take a defective machine whilst under CASA scrutiny ?

Who here would deem that aircraft airworthy and proceed to load passengers onto it.... fare paying or otherwise ?
baron_beeza is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 03:40
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Behind a CB near you
Age: 43
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While I am still coming down hard on the pilot, because I understood he knew the turbocharger was faulty, I am worried about the others.
Chief Engineer, Chief Pilot and Ops Manager, Owner etc.
Three of those mentioned above were the same person and therein lay a fair bit of the problem. (CP was the odd one out)
Nose wheel first is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 04:04
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While I am still coming down hard on the pilot, because I understood he knew the turbocharger was faulty, I am worried about the others
Gday Baron Beeza, whilst you and I know the implications of a faulty turbocharger I have my doubts that a pilot would, especially when the CE/Ops manager/Owner told him it wouldn't be an issue.
Having worked for similar organisations in Australia and the South Pacific I know that it is an up hill battle to get these organisations to maintain their aircraft safely.
Cheers
BH
blackhand is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 04:24
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 595
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blackhand
whilst you and I know the implications of a faulty turbocharger I have my doubts that a pilot would...
jeeez REALLY??? You don't think failure to deliver max-rated power when the throttle was opened would have been any sort of indicator??? THAT was the last line of defence and when the departure should have been aborted, given the obvious failure of all other defences.
RadioSaigon is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 04:26
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: mum and dads place
Age: 33
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BH

What else should CASA do when an applicant for a document achieves the
requirement to hold that document? Add further requirements because you want to.
I was issued my AME licence when I reached the minimum requirements, using your
logic I shouldn't have been
The Minimum requirements for CP for that type of operation is 1000hours including 200 in command of M/E. 12 Months experience in commercial operations. Maybe that type of experience is acceptable for a 1 or 2 plane operation but when you are looking at operations where 15-20 low time pilots are going to be placed under your command and a fleet of up to 15-20 aircraftdo you really thisnk that is acceptable. Would you consider your experience as a maintainer after 12 months in the industry would have been sufficient for you to take on the role of Chief Engineer with 15-20 apprentice AMEs working under you??

According to table A in CAO 82: 2000 hours and 400 command on M/E for which 2 or more flight crew are required and 2 years industry experience is all that is needed to become CP of QANTAS. Hey might put in my app when I hit those minimums, you reckon I should get the job?

Gday Baron Beeza, in what way could they have acted earlier?
It has been widely known for quite some time about some of the antics that have been going on in that place. Posted almost 12 months ago.
Now it is time for CASA to start getting serious about making aviation in the
kimberlies a safer place. All they would have to do is seek out some of the ex
CPs and pilots that have worked there in the last 3 years. Some of the stories
they could tell...
morning_glory is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 05:10
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Single Pilot CRM

Firstly, let me say I am not an instructor but I was an ATO and my CPL was issued 25 years ago.
I n this day of HF and CRM at what stage is this sort of scenario (resisting pressure/resolving conflict) covered in CPL training? If it isn't covered why not? As just about every contributor to this thread has said, this scenario is not a novel one especially when operators balance on the edge of financial viability. What training is given to pilots at the entry stage to equip them to cope with this sort of situation, to be the final barrier?
flying-spike is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 05:37
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@RadioSaigon
You obviously know the implications and what it means if the wastegate is intermittant, I have seen low time pilot not realise he was down on power when the turbocharged
engine only made 29 inches on ground check.
@Morning Glory
Agreed, but the difference is that when a candidate is presented to CASA who fulfils the regulatory requirements they are obliged to approve them.
CASA hands are tied until they have prima facia evidence of the infringement - and happy I am for that or else I would have lost my licence on more than one occasion.
blackhand is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 09:14
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How many LAME's did they have over the last year ?. The Owner/Chief Engineer/Ops Manager (same guy) was the only one ? I know of two engineers that did work there and have both washed their hands of the place.

This may come down to the issue of engineers VS aircraft ratios.

Last edited by Hasherucf; 10th Jun 2012 at 09:18.
Hasherucf is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 10:02
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What it could possibly come down to is whether the turbocharger was Ground or Altitude Boosted. If it were an Altitude boosted turbo it would not cause a problem as it only aims to maintain MSL power up to a specific altitude. I'm assuming that the turbo fitted on this aircraft was ground boosted and that is the reason why there was insufficient power.
Could it be possible the engineers/pilots thought it was altitude boosted? Because in that case the aircraft could fly it would just never get to its service ceiling but still be quite capable below 10 000ft.
michael36 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 11:15
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could it be possible the engineers/pilots thought it was altitude boosted?
A strange question... they would have to be the most incompetent about..
Very few here would have any doubts about it.
I have never worked on the type but I had a fair idea what power he should be seeing during the take-off.

Turbonormalizing Vs Turbocharging

There is normal take-off figure of 38" mentioned in the TCDS. [email protected]/38"

www.casa.gov.au/casadata/cota/download/VA503.pdf

The video seemed to show a dramatic power reduction though, - the aircraft was struggling to remain airborne.
I have not seen the report. What power setting did he actually achieve ?

I like what RS had to say.
You don't think failure to deliver max-rated power when the throttle was opened would have been any sort of indicator??? THAT was the last line of defence and when the departure should have been aborted, given the obvious failure of all other defences.
baron_beeza is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 11:23
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
What the problem is here guys is you are reading the news article claiming he took off with a known faulty turbo charger and are believing it.

I'd eat my hat if any pilot was that stupid.

From the inside , I have heard that there was previous complaints from other pilots with the waste gate.

This was discussed with RK by the pilot concerned and the pilot was informed that if the unit failed, it would still fly and he would be able to land it safely.

Now who wouldn't have taken it at that level of experience?

Unfortunalty the unit failed on the takeoff roll and the end result is the video.

Yes the pilot didn't make very good decisions, but he probably got involved in risky shift and a willingness to please his new boss who is a known toe cutter.

Now can we get past this "took off" with a known failed turbo charger?

Alligator was the problem not the pilot.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 11:32
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Perth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Turbo Scarecan needs minimum 38 inches for take off, he had 29 and still took off with plenty of rwy avail to pull up (probably by the first taxi way) and 2 gauges clearly showing the fact. When interviewed and asked why he did it he couldn't answer, he knew he needed min 38, took off with 29 - pilot error regardless of the maintenance issues that were at gator.
RR69 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 11:59
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 595
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
I'd eat my hat if any pilot was that stupid...
...sauce with your hat?

RadioSaigon is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 12:10
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Alligator Airways Pty Limited (No 3) [2012] FCA 601 (8 June 2012)



28 April 2012 Ė Emergency landing aircraft VH-WOV

The last of the recent incidents relied on by CASA occurred on 28 April 2012 when the single engine Gippsland Aeronautics GA8TC Airvan registered VH-WOV carrying six fare paying passengers suffered a failure of its turbo charger. The failure was noticed by the pilot prior to take-off from Kununurra Airport but he still attempted takeoff. While the aircraft was able to become airborne it could not climb above 30 feet, and then suffered a further loss of power so that its height was about 5 to 10 feet. The pilot attempted to slowly return to the airport rather than landing in adjacent paddocks. It was difficult to do so because the aircraft could not easily be banked without risking a wing touching the ground. The pilot was eventually able to land the aircraft on the rough ground beside one of the taxi-ways at the airport.
Video footage of the flight taken by a passenger was admitted into evidence. It provided a chilling insight into the unfolding of this incident. The video showed that when finally about to land one wing of the aircraft came within about 2 feet of striking the ground.
Again, Alligator did not deny this concerning event. It did not attempt to argue that taking off in this aircraft was not a serious risk to air safety. Mr Streetís evidence was also that the pilotís decision to attempt to return to the airfield rather than attempting an emergency landing straight ahead in the adjacent paddocks, involved an incredible risk.

Last edited by baron_beeza; 10th Jun 2012 at 12:17.
baron_beeza is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 12:32
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 54
Posts: 6,865
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Turbo Scarecan needs minimum 38 inches for take off, he had 29 and still took off with plenty of rwy avail to pull up (probably by the first taxi way) and 2 gauges clearly showing the fact. When interviewed and asked why he did it he couldn't answer, he knew he needed min 38, took off with 29 - pilot error regardless of the maintenance issues that were at gator.
You can blame the pilot for sure, that goes without saying, however, the culture that allowed this kind of pilot error is clearly evident and that is a systemic problem wouldn't you say?

Going out on a limb here, but any pilot who thinks this way, clearly does not understand his powerplant. And why? Because PPL/CPL training contains no really valuable powerplant training. Sure some of you will argue this, but I doubt less than 1% can prove they actually received any, unless they went and learned it themselves. There is none, and CASA do not require any. The theory books are riddled with lies and crap, so what hope is there. I was a victim of this system too, just lucky it never cost me anything.

This outfit had Whyalla Airlines written all over it......sheer arse it did not have the same result.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 12:45
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I would also go out on a limb here.

Was he mixed fleet flying?

Did he fly the 207/210 also?

How many hours did he have in the can?

Was he taught to check manifold pressure? Or just firewall it and do the old "airspeed live, rpm stable, ts and ps green?

If he was mixed fleet flying and had flown a naturally aspirated aircraft prior that would probably make around 26 inches or so on takeoff (certainly kess than 29") was he seeing what he expected to see?

Did he realize there was an issue prior to rotation?

I doubt he would have committed to the takeoff if he had of realized what was happening.

The only reason I became conscious of manifold pressure in piston powered light aircraft was when I started flying PA31s. I wasn't neccesarily checking how much it was making but more that it wasn't over boosting. From memory it was around 46". I was more interested in the single piston powered days of RPM and how the aeroplane "felt".

At 200 hours I didn't really know what is was supposed to feel like, so alarm bells might not have been ringing and I may have been in the exact position this poor soul found himself in.

This is called experience. Hopefully the folks reading this, gain some from this example.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 14:42
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth
Age: 57
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All were reported. It's on public record.
GedStreet is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 14:50
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth
Age: 57
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, they had and have a Chief Pilot in place - me. And a brave man ready to take it and CASA on because he's been on the inside. He is not me.

Children, go to Federal Court, then stand in front of CASA dudettes for a day. Hold your head up high, afterwards... You have no idea.

Yet for the grace of God go You!

Stick together, be strong, together - they pick off the weak. Think - who is next?

Last edited by GedStreet; 10th Jun 2012 at 17:17. Reason: Incomplete expression.
GedStreet is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2012, 14:52
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Downtown
Age: 53
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Might be a bit harsh on that call 'tmpffisch';
It's true people are human and we all make mistakes.
Zeroing in on an individual is dangerous.
Zero hour for him and he messed up, big whoop.
If you follow, think wisely about what you say...

Very very small industry..

expressinginterest is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.