C172 Down on Middle Island
So why was it authorised by an AOC?
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the operator’s primary activity since July 2009 was passenger transport flights to beach aeroplane landing areas (ALAs), regulatory oversight by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) had not examined the operator’s procedures and practices for conducting flight operations at these ALAs.
What on earth were CASA inspecting, then? Eight years of doing this and not a question from CASA?
I reckon a few of us could hazard a pretty good guess what caused that engine to quit. But as you say, we shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be their job, not ours. But with 129 pages in the report, you'd think they could have spared a paragraph to discuss how the carby float bowl ended up dry. I'll just leave that there.
Originally Posted by The ATSB
It is possible that the en route manoeuvres being conducted during the flight briefly unported one of the fuel tanks, resulting in air feeding into the fuel line from that tank. However, all of the available evidence indicates that the fuel selector was selected to both tanks during the flight, and air being fed into the engine from one side should not have led to a total power loss. In addition, the en route manoeuvres stopped about 80 seconds prior to the total engine power loss. Overall, it seems very unlikely that the en route manoeuvres could have introduced sufficient air into the engine from both fuel tanks at the same time, resulting in an engine power loss, particularly one occurring so long after the manoeuvres ceased.
Have a look at the graph on page 106, Aerobatics in the period 1034:20-1035:30 before a pushover with another bunt at 1036:15 that peaked at 750'. The engine failed 80 seconds later at 60' . What the expected fuel flow in that descent was is not addressed vs a comparison to the amount the lines from the tank inlets can hold to see if flow-required > fuel in lines or vice versa. They do say the engine will stop in 9 seconds if you turn off the fuel valve with the engine at full power, but you have twice, maybe three times the fuel valve->engine distance compared to the tank -> fuel valve distance and he wasn't descending at full power...
Originally Posted by The ATSB
Contrary to both regulatory requirements and the operator’s written procedures, the baggage and camp supplies in the aircraft were not restrained by any means.
Originally Posted by The ATSB
In this case, both the chief pilot and the pilot of the accident flight believed the passengers and baggage was such that VH-WTQ was loaded well below its maximum take-off weight (MTOW). However, a detailed review of the available information found that the aircraft was at least 17 kg over its MTOW, and the pilots had underestimated the weight of the passengers and the baggage. The available evidence also indicates that the operator’s other aircraft (VH-JER), flown by the chief pilot, was loaded above its MTOW on the first flight of the day.
Guidance material from CASA released in 1990 advised against the practice of using standard weights for aircraft with less than seven seats, and it advocated for the use of accurate weights. CASA had also specifically advised the operator during a site inspection in 2015 against the practice of using standard weights, and the chief pilot had replied in writing that in future the operator’s pilots would weigh all passengers and baggage. Unfortunately, that did not occur.
Guidance material from CASA released in 1990 advised against the practice of using standard weights for aircraft with less than seven seats, and it advocated for the use of accurate weights. CASA had also specifically advised the operator during a site inspection in 2015 against the practice of using standard weights, and the chief pilot had replied in writing that in future the operator’s pilots would weigh all passengers and baggage. Unfortunately, that did not occur.
Originally Posted by The ABC
More than a decade ago, in 2007, when Mr Rhoades worked for another company, CASA grounded him which resulted in him pleading guilty in the Magistrates Court to four charges. He was directed to undertake theory and flight examinations to demonstrate that he had the necessary knowledge and skill to continue to hold those licences.
He pleaded guilty to administrative issues with his pilot's log book and maintenance sheets. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of unauthorised commercial operations. Mr Rhoades said he did charter flights but the company he worked for did not have a charter licence, something Mr Rhoades said he did not know and rectified once alerted.
He also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls mid-flight, which is not allowed. He said he never did it again and has had a clean slate up until the 2017 plane crash.
Source article
He pleaded guilty to administrative issues with his pilot's log book and maintenance sheets. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of unauthorised commercial operations. Mr Rhoades said he did charter flights but the company he worked for did not have a charter licence, something Mr Rhoades said he did not know and rectified once alerted.
He also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls mid-flight, which is not allowed. He said he never did it again and has had a clean slate up until the 2017 plane crash.
Source article
There are very few new ways to kill yourself in aviation. People just don't want to learn from other's and keep repeating the same ones...
Last edited by KRviator; 21st Oct 2019 at 04:08. Reason: Swapped 'fuel' for 'air' Para1
Part of the alleged “attitude “ problem may have been the original four charges - all but one being administrative matters and the last - passenger touching controls is not necessarily dangerous. Could these have fostered a “rules are BS” attitude?
In many automotive circles, the road rules are regarded as nothing more than revenue raising. Could this be the same thing?
From my memory, the Cessna fuel lines are about AN6. These are going to trap decent sized bubbles for a while.
In many automotive circles, the road rules are regarded as nothing more than revenue raising. Could this be the same thing?
From my memory, the Cessna fuel lines are about AN6. These are going to trap decent sized bubbles for a while.
Last edited by Sunfish; 21st Oct 2019 at 00:15.
He also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls mid-flight, which is not allowed.
As to the report - they looked and couldn't find anything. What else are they to say? That lack of speculation doesn't make it a crap report.
In terms of speculation, and looking at the conduct of the operation, it's just as likely that the pilot was attempting a "Bob Hoover" landing. 125 knots at sixty feet, pull the mixture and pull up for a glide reversal and landing. Ta Da!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not allowed? I know there is a requirement to instruct passengers in a control seat not to interfere with controls - but I've never seen a rule prohibiting the pilot from allowing them to touch the controls.
As to the report - they looked and couldn't find anything. What else are they to say? That lack of speculation doesn't make it a crap report.
In terms of speculation, and looking at the conduct of the operation, it's just as likely that the pilot was attempting a "Bob Hoover" landing. 125 knots at sixty feet, pull the mixture and pull up for a glide reversal and landing. Ta Da!
As to the report - they looked and couldn't find anything. What else are they to say? That lack of speculation doesn't make it a crap report.
In terms of speculation, and looking at the conduct of the operation, it's just as likely that the pilot was attempting a "Bob Hoover" landing. 125 knots at sixty feet, pull the mixture and pull up for a glide reversal and landing. Ta Da!
The report was comprehensive, as was the evidence.
Yet there are omissions.
Which is a pity, as they obviously put a lot of work into it.
If the pilot allows them to touch, does that make it "authorised"? Is that not how "Trial" flights work?
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Trial" flights are instructional. There are no passengers onboard, each person is considered a member of the operating crew. One an instructor, the other a student, authorised to operate the aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Because they are a member of the operating crew. They are not a passenger, as would be the case for a scenic flight.
An instructors privileges allow them to authorize someone who does not hold a license (i.e. a student pilot, NOT a passenger) to operate an aircraft.
An instructors privileges allow them to authorize someone who does not hold a license (i.e. a student pilot, NOT a passenger) to operate an aircraft.