ATSB writer gilds the lily
DFDE is still relevant as one of your feet is still going to have to counter the swing using the rudder pedals. It is however not used procedurally to identify which engine has failed.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following the aircraft yaw, the flight crew actively employed their crew resource management procedures to identify and confirm the engine fault and then shut down the right engine. The use of these procedures reduced the risk of an incorrect diagnosis of the fault or activation of the incorrect engine controls during shut down.
Poorly written. Written by somebody that is not a writer. Unbecoming of a report.
I would really need to see the context this passage was taken from, but it is just a little too sensationalist, and is attempting persuasion.
The touch of the dramatic makes this more like the style of writing you would find at the local DVD rental shop, when reading the back cover of a movie box.
Completely out of place for an ATSB report. ATSB reports are not what they used to be.
I would also add that what has been said is flat out wrong. The procedures employed weren't CRM procedures, but would have been, in fact, the standard procedures that all multi-engine operators train their pilots for. Those procedures existed long before the CRM concept came into being.
But why employ so many words to say that the engine failure was treated correctly? A properly written report would simply say that the faulty engine was identified and shut down in accordance with the required procedures. It would even have been permissible to have just said that "the faulty engine was shut down".
But if errors were made in the execution of the shut down, or the required procedure was deviated from, then this would justify (and require) words related to the procedure and how it should have been carried out.
"Following the aircraft yaw ...". Poor english. If a car was to slide, would you write, "following the car slide"? No, because it is poor english. Omission of the word "aircraft" is most probably the best fix in this case, assuming there was an earlier sentence reporting the yaw.
"Shut down the right engine ...". Here is another specific example of the poor wording. Does "right" in this case mean "correct", or does it mean the engine on the right hand side of the aircraft? From the context, I suspect the former, in which case this is very poor wording indeed.
When writing a report, the word "right" should NEVER be used when "correct" is the intended meaning. This is because "right" has a number of meanings. Similarly, the word "last" should never be used when "final" is available.
"... actively employed ...". The word "actively" here is redundant. The art of report writing is leave out as many words as possible. This author seems to be trying to do the opposite. This entire passage could have been written thus:
The engine was shut down.
Exactly how they shut the engine down is not relevant.
ATSB staff responsible for writing reports should be given some training in the art. We have seen a number of instances of atrocious reporting in recent years. Here are some of the PPrune threads devoted to discussions of those reports. I have commented in these threads.
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ease-atsb.html
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...sb-report.html
I was particularly vocal in the case of the A330 report as the writer in that case was lavishing praise on the actions by the flight crew. Praise is not something that should be found in an ATSB report.
Poorly written. Written by somebody that is not a writer. Unbecoming of a report.
I would really need to see the context this passage was taken from, but it is just a little too sensationalist, and is attempting persuasion.
The touch of the dramatic makes this more like the style of writing you would find at the local DVD rental shop, when reading the back cover of a movie box.
Completely out of place for an ATSB report. ATSB reports are not what they used to be.
I would also add that what has been said is flat out wrong. The procedures employed weren't CRM procedures, but would have been, in fact, the standard procedures that all multi-engine operators train their pilots for. Those procedures existed long before the CRM concept came into being.
But why employ so many words to say that the engine failure was treated correctly? A properly written report would simply say that the faulty engine was identified and shut down in accordance with the required procedures. It would even have been permissible to have just said that "the faulty engine was shut down".
But if errors were made in the execution of the shut down, or the required procedure was deviated from, then this would justify (and require) words related to the procedure and how it should have been carried out.
"Following the aircraft yaw ...". Poor english. If a car was to slide, would you write, "following the car slide"? No, because it is poor english. Omission of the word "aircraft" is most probably the best fix in this case, assuming there was an earlier sentence reporting the yaw.
"Shut down the right engine ...". Here is another specific example of the poor wording. Does "right" in this case mean "correct", or does it mean the engine on the right hand side of the aircraft? From the context, I suspect the former, in which case this is very poor wording indeed.
When writing a report, the word "right" should NEVER be used when "correct" is the intended meaning. This is because "right" has a number of meanings. Similarly, the word "last" should never be used when "final" is available.
"... actively employed ...". The word "actively" here is redundant. The art of report writing is leave out as many words as possible. This author seems to be trying to do the opposite. This entire passage could have been written thus:
The engine was shut down.
Exactly how they shut the engine down is not relevant.
ATSB staff responsible for writing reports should be given some training in the art. We have seen a number of instances of atrocious reporting in recent years. Here are some of the PPrune threads devoted to discussions of those reports. I have commented in these threads.
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...ease-atsb.html
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...sb-report.html
I was particularly vocal in the case of the A330 report as the writer in that case was lavishing praise on the actions by the flight crew. Praise is not something that should be found in an ATSB report.
I've seen BASI reports that stated "xxx did not undertake an approved yyy course, nor was he required to". Talk about misrepresentation and implanting thoughts.
Hate the bastards. There is not one in there that is worthy enough to clean (the late and incredibly well respected) Macarthur Job's shoes. RIP.
Hate the bastards. There is not one in there that is worthy enough to clean (the late and incredibly well respected) Macarthur Job's shoes. RIP.
Sometimes you get the implanted thought technique combined with awful sentence structure:
The aircraft was not fitted, nor was it required to be, with a flight data or voice recorder.
ATSB staff responsible for writing reports should be given some training in the art
In another era I was told to prepare a minute for the signature of an Assistant Secretary in the former DCA. His title meant he was a big wheel in the Department. I did just that, only to be coldly informed the Minute was too concise for the big wheel's liking.
I was told to re-write it; this time with more padding such as the expression "I have set in train" etc.
Pointing out to my boss the Manual of Administration (which we also used in the RAAF) stressed the importance of conciseness in letter writing, I was told that I was in the Public Service now and not in the RAAF, so be a good boy and do as you are told
Maybe in a Chieftain, but not in a turbine.
Confirmation
'Torque, EGT, fuel flow'.
But there exceptions, i.e. low power descending turns
When writing a report, the word "right" should NEVER be used when "correct" is the intended meaning. This is because "right" has a number of meanings. Similarly, the word "last" should never be used when "final" is available.
I think the problem is that as the HF specialists require academic kudos for their work, the reports have to reflect an academic tone which results in 4 sentences to describe a simple engine shutdown. In days past the reports were written for the average man in the street. If that is still the case then they are overestimating the man in the street's IQ by a significant amount.
If you think that the ATSB have a way with words, have a look at what RAA are doing:
https://www.raa.asn.au/safety/accide...ect-summaries/
It's like they are murdering the English language!
https://www.raa.asn.au/safety/accide...ect-summaries/
It's like they are murdering the English language!
