VH-PGW ATSB report

[The Green Goblin]

Did he follow ATC instruction to descend too literally?

He did take it literally as it was intended. It was an instruction to descend. Had there been the words 'when ready, or 'at your discretion, descend', IMO it is unlikely the accident would have happened.

Ultimately though it should have been Willow who said, 'pan pan, pan pan, pan pan, PGW, PGW, PGW, engine failure, tracking present position direct bankstown, driftdown procedures 2 POB.

GG

[Jack Ranga]

Jabman,

Any chance JD will reconstruct the accident report for us? I rely on his & his mates knowledge

So weak & gutless political correctness has made it into what should be something that saves other pilots lives (accident reports).

I'm not in a position to judge, wasn't there but I do have a feeling the culture of IFR aircraft descending OCTA into BK had a fair bit to do with this

[Jabawocky]

JR

Not likely, JD has retired from that well appreciated writing role. Mind you he was rather motivated in offering his comments, and when I asked permission to publicaly upload our conversation, I even offered anonymous posting, he was quite adament that attribution be included, so included it was.

I dont think he cares about ruffling feathers down here

[Horatio Leafblower]

I have never flown a Mojave, and I don't have a POH/AFM, BUT

- What is max MAP?
- What is max continuous MAP?
- What MAP could Airtex's Mojaves achieve on T/O? Had they been adjusted "to protect them from ******* pilots"?

I have a good reason for asking... Hey Chad, do yourself a favour and check the MAP on IGW on T/O.

[LeadSled]

MLE,
What agenda might that be, other than having long and very publicly advocated the importance of effective communication, as opposed to the Australian approach to pedantic rote "radio procedures" at the expense of effective communications.

Amongst international crews, Australia is a byword for stilted, inflexible and pedantic "radio procedures", if you don't understand this, it can only be your own lack of relevant experience. If you don't understand the problem, you are probably part it, and unlikely to be part of the solution.

I am not blaming individual controllers, they get it in the neck if they deviate --- but "the system", including Airservices, in latter days CASA, and CivilAir are all at the heart of the problem.

The objections to the formal acceptance of ICAO SARPs on the subject (Annex 10, Vol.2 and associated docs.) was fierce.

Fortunately, the combined approach of Qantas, Ansett, AIPA, AOPA and ASAC carried the day, when it came to the adoption of ICAO compliance.

Although at least now we pay lip service to ICAO SARPs, there is still a world of difference between radio comms here and just about everywhere else I have ( and other international operators) experience.

As to the B727/DC-8 and Kingair accidents, I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with the reports of the accidents ,as to the Garuda incident, go have a look, but I remember it all too well, having been there that day, and caught some of it on frequency.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I have just recalled another very serious incident, that highlighted the dangers of "same words, different meanings" , when the Continental DC-10 got all too close to an executive jet in oceanic north east of Sydney.

If you are in ignorance of all the history, the answer is in your hands.

PS2: I was also on YSSY at the time the Kingair crashed, it is etched on my memory. To this day, every time I visit my solicitor, I can see a significant part of that Kingair sitting in his bookshelf, as testimony the the post accident legal battle. The PIC of the Kingair was a distant relative of mine, believe me, I was very close to the whole investigation.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Ultimately though it should have been Willow who said, 'pan pan, pan pan, pan pan, PGW, PGW, PGW, engine failure, tracking present position direct bankstown, driftdown procedures 2 POB.

Absolutely!

You can tiptoe around it all you like, but in the end it comes down to that!

Dr

[Jabawocky]

Quote:
Ultimately though it should have been Willow who said, 'pan pan, pan pan, pan pan, PGW, PGW, PGW, engine failure, tracking present position direct bankstown, driftdown procedures 2 POB.
Absolutely!

You can tiptoe around it all you like, but in the end it comes down to that!

Dr

+1

no argument from me.

[Up-into-the-air]

a

Is it not Aviate Navigate Communicate??

[dhavillandpilot]

HorTio leaf lower perhaps you need to look in a hangar at bankstown Igw won't be flying again it is now a Christmas tree.

All those that are armchair pulling the ATSB report to pieces. Perhaps you should all reflect it could just as easily have been you in a similar aircraft.

Having had one propellor failure, one total jet engine failure, and a total single engine failure the words my first instructor stan mobs taught me wa

There by the grace of god go I, this was after the c320 crashed on the go.f course at bk.

I would suggest some humility

[Jabawocky]

Humility is fine DH, but we the taxpayer, and aviators, employees, passengers deserve a whole heap better than the report presented.

Humility my arse, two more dead, and even though the PIC left a lot to be desired, the whole system here has let down not just the two deceased, but everyone else as well.

If they were your family, you would want better, not just for closure, but for the hope their death was not in vain.

Many of us are not happy and we never knew the folk concerned.

It simply is not good enough.

[Horatio Leafblower]

HorTio leaf lower perhaps you need to look in a hangar at bankstown Igw won't be flying again it is now a Christmas tree

Yeah yeah whatever I try to avoid the place.

[VH-MLE]

To LeadSled

Unfortunately, it would seem your agenda is to denigrate the Australian aviation system and its associated bodies and staff at every opportunity. That is well and truly apparent in many of your posts.

As for the B200 accident and B727/DC8 event at Sydney, please point out exactly where you think faults in Australian radio phraseology had any bearing on either occurrence because I have just re-read each report in fine detail and cannot find even the slightest piece of evidence to support any part of your sensationalist claims (NOTE: I recommend you re-read both reports from beginning to counter that seemingly increasingly faulty memory of yours).

With regards to Garuda incidents in Perth, there have unfortunately been several serious ones over the years and the one you allude to doesn’t spring to mind. Given your very well documented history of misinformation and distortion, please provide more detail so that I can review for myself your assertion.

VH-MLE

ps. Have a Happy Christmas and I while I acknowledge your strong views on GA in Australia, I hope 2013 enables you to have a more balanced perspective on aviation matters…

[VH-MLE]

To LeadSled

Dear LeadSled,

I hope you had a very happy Christmas.

However, continuing on with your earlier assertions (that the accidents/incidents you raised in earlier posts could/would have been avoided if the not for radio phraseologies in place at the time) you have failed to justify how this was the case - please advise me how you can justify your position on this when it is clearly contrary to the evidence available.

In the interim and regarding the poor communication processes you seem to believe exists in Australia, I invite you, as a basic example, to listen (via Youtube) to a few "JFK Tower" exchanges with other aircraft (both international and domestic) and dare to tell me afterwards that their communication style is both "effective" and internationally standardised.

I'm sure after that you'll agree with me that compared to your beloved FAA air traffic system, the Australia system isn't so bad after all...

Once again, I'm waiting for you to provide specific details of how "failed radio procedures" led to both the B200 and B727/DC8 events you refer to and also how the Garuda aircraft "nearly hit a domestic over Perth".

Over to you...

VH-MLE

[bentleg]

provide specific details of how "failed radio procedures" led to both the B200 and B727/DC8 events

Thread drift however I want to comment on VH-AAV as I knew the pilot.

With the B200 event the 727 had touched down by the time Kerry (the pilot of VH-AAV Kingair) had declared his landing would not be normal. Like PGW if he had declared a PAN at the outset, the result may have been different. In both cases the pilots expected to fly OK on one engine (which did not happen) and that it was not a PAN situation. I do not blame this accident (or PGW) on failed radio procedures.

[Jack Ranga]

Dare I say it! Perhaps we could learn something from the RAAF here? A PAN is declared on an engine failure regardless of how the aircraft is performing, regardless of how many engines the aircraft has. It's not left to pilot discretion.

[MACH082]

There is no discretion about it.

The regulations clearly state that when shutting down an engine in any multi engine aeroplane, (except intentional for training purposes) requires the declaration of pan pan.

Safe flying folks.

[bentleg]

The regulations clearly state that when shutting down an engine in any multi engine aeroplane, (except intentional for training purposes) requires the declaration of pan pan.

If that's the case maybe the radio procedures did fail! I'd like to read the regulation, can you point me to it please?

[Old Akro]

One of the factors here is (I think) that (rightly or wrongly) there is a belief that if you declare a PAN or mayday that you'll spend the next week dealing with CASA paperwork. I think there is also an image thing that professional pilots understate the circumstances and sound cool. If you look no further than "Sully" Sullenberger as a role model, he transmitted neither a PAN or MAYDAY call but there has been nothing but praise for his handling of his incident.

I still question whether this would have made a difference. The controller knew it was an emergency and had called for emergency services at Bankstown.

I do agree with Jack Ranga that the better thing would have been to declare a PAN and reject the instruction to descend.

[LeadSled]

Unfortunately, it would seem your agenda is to denigrate the Australian aviation system and its associated bodies and staff at every opportunity. That is well and truly apparent in many of your posts.

MLE,
If you actually read what I say, and not what you think I say, you will understand I have long criticized the Australian approach to rote "radio procedures", as opposed to effective communications. And those unions that have stood in the way of reform.

Indeed, the whole reason for the very existence of the AIPA, was the refusal of AFAP, across many issues, to except modernization and reform. To name but a few: F/E on all aircraft with more than 100 seats, no "glass cockpits", no intersection takeoffs, no derated /flexi thrust takeoff power --- and many more. AFAP was standing in the way of us operating our B767 the way Boeing designed them. Remember the nonsense of F/E in Ansett B767.

A good starting point would be to compare ICAO recommended phraseologies with the page after page of same in the AIP. Also consider the CASA proposal, not yet dead, to make the AIP phraseologies legally enforceable, on pain of strict liability penalties.

As to the B727/DC-8 --- why was the DC-8 still on the runway?

Because the clearance was something like: "Take next taxiway right, backtrack, call ground xxx.x"

This is exactly what the DC-8 did --- followed the clearance in internationally accepted/ICAO terms, at the next taxiway, they did a 180 and backtracked on the runway.

In internationally accepted/ICAO terms, you can only backtrack on a runway, not a taxiway. The frequency change instruction should have been something like "when clear, call ground xxx.x". With the DC-8 in ground, it did not hear the takeoff clearance for the B727.

I well recall the ATC standards mob in DCA being referred to as the "Airstapo", their penchant for disciplining individual controllers who had exercised initiative was hardly a secret.

As to the Kingair, it was clear the aircraft was in trouble, the controller knew the aircraft had an engine failure and was having performance problems, but initiative was forcefully discouraged, the Kingair was not cleared No1, because it did not declare a formal emergency.

As to the close go between an executive jet and a Continental DC-10. Australia phraseology at the time was "cruise (say) FL350" instead of "climb to/Climb to and maintain FL350".

In ICAO and US terminology, "Cruise 350" was a clearance for a cruise climb, to cruise at anywhere between 350 and the minimum level for the airway, and included a clearance to descend when ready to the IAP for the filed destination".

As Murphy's law dictates, the two aircraft were extremely close to being at the same point and height at the same time.

Just as we see with ATSB now, how the investigation report dealt with this was a masterpiece of bureaucratic obfuscation to conceal the Australian "regulatory" contribution to the near hit.

If one was able to go back into the records of the AFAP/Overseas Branch Tec Sub Committee of the day, you would find we were well aware of the problem of "same words, different meanings" in Qantas, and had written to the powers that be, (particularly "cruise" v. "maintain") and been completely ignored, until the inevitable.

As to regarding BASI/ATSB reports as "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" and being a wholly reliable source for all the details, warts and all, of an accident or incident ---- how would you describe the recent reports of the Norfolk ditching or the Canley Vale fatal. Do they tell the whole story. If you think they do, why are we having the Senate RRAT inquiry.

All reports of serious incidents and accidents, especially if a foreign aircraft is involved, are politically influenced ---- there were three "investigations" into the B727/DC-8 accident --- did you know that??

Rest assured, I shall continue to criticise associations/unions and individuals who stand in the way of advancements in cost/benefit justified risk reduction, or much needed reforms, or associations that promote "changes" that are for the benefit of the associations, particularly commercial benefit , and not aviation in general, for whatever reason.

That goes double when I hear that "cultural differences" (pig headed parochialism) prevent practices that are entirely successful elsewhere, particularly in the NZ/US/CA/UK, "working in Australia". Such views usually emanating from dolts who have no relevant experience outside Australia's very small aviation pond.

Tootle pip!!

[Fly_by_wire]

If you look no further than "Sully" Sullenberger as a role model, he transmitted neither a PAN or MAYDAY call but there has been nothing but praise for his handling of his incident.

Gotta call BS on that one.. (His mayday call was garbled)

From the NTSB report:
At 1527:33, the captain reported the emergency situation to the LGA departure controller, stating, "mayday mayday mayday this is Cactus fifteen thirty nine hit birds, we've lost thrust in both engines, we're turning back towards LaGuardia"