Quality of ATSB reports getting worse?
Quality of ATSB reports getting worse?
I read ATSB reports habitually. As a low time pilot that struggles to fly as often as I'd like I find it helps to keep my head in the game.
However, I have to wonder if lately they've been getting work experience kids to write them? This gem being an example:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773259...-020-final.pdf
Were they always this bad?
However, I have to wonder if lately they've been getting work experience kids to write them? This gem being an example:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773259...-020-final.pdf
Were they always this bad?
Old Akro, your post makes me wonder something that no-one I know has been able to answer.
At my home airfield there have been two serious accidents in the past couple of years. Both were non-fatal but the aircraft (both VH registered) were destroyed. The authorities were informed and I believe attended to interview people, but reports were never published.
So, what criteria has to be addressed for an investigation to happen and a report to follow?
Why is someone landing nosewheel first in a 182 at Bathurst considered worthy of a report but two near-fatal accidents not?
At my home airfield there have been two serious accidents in the past couple of years. Both were non-fatal but the aircraft (both VH registered) were destroyed. The authorities were informed and I believe attended to interview people, but reports were never published.
So, what criteria has to be addressed for an investigation to happen and a report to follow?
Why is someone landing nosewheel first in a 182 at Bathurst considered worthy of a report but two near-fatal accidents not?
Old Akro, your post makes me wonder something that no-one I know has been able to answer.
At my home airfield there have been two serious accidents in the past couple of years. Both were non-fatal but the aircraft (both VH registered) were destroyed. The authorities were informed and I believe attended to interview people, but reports were never published.
So, what criteria has to be addressed for an investigation to happen and a report to follow?
Why is someone landing nosewheel first in a 182 at Bathurst considered worthy of a report but two near-fatal accidents not?
At my home airfield there have been two serious accidents in the past couple of years. Both were non-fatal but the aircraft (both VH registered) were destroyed. The authorities were informed and I believe attended to interview people, but reports were never published.
So, what criteria has to be addressed for an investigation to happen and a report to follow?
Why is someone landing nosewheel first in a 182 at Bathurst considered worthy of a report but two near-fatal accidents not?
‘In recent years, the Bureau has adopted a policy of selective investigation, similar to many of our equivalent organisations in other countries. The traditional approach in Australia had been to investigate everything, no matter how minor. However, many categories of air safety occurrence are repetitive in nature, such as ground loops involving aircraft with tailwheel undercarriages, and no new prevention knowledge is gained by continuing to investigate such events. However, the law requires that all accidents and incidents must be reported. Because BASI receives all these reports, it retains the ability to monitor trends, and can initiate an investigation into safety issues raised – for example, by a number of relatively minor occurrences. While these events individually would not warrant full investigation, considered as a group they may be indicative of broader systemic safety deficiencies – a topic which will be addressed later in this paper.
In practice the Bureau does not distinguish operationally between accidents and incidents – they are all ‘safety occurrences’. The objective of selective investigation is to concentrate the Bureau’s resources on in-depth investigations, which offer the greatest potential to enhance air safety. BASI has developed and refined various criteria to decide which events will be looked at most closely – one of these is a primary emphasis on the safety of fare-paying passengers in any category of operation – high capacity regular public transport (RPT), low capacity RPT and charter, and other commercial operations involving fare paying passengers.
AVIA5022 The Purpose of Investigation – Edition 4. 11
In addition, in part enabled by the redeployment of resources as a result of the selective investigation policy, BASI is placing a much stronger emphasis on applied systems safety studies. This is aimed at identifying and rectifying underlying factors within the aviation system which can impact upon safety at the ‘sharp end’ – that is, in the cockpit, cabin, control tower, maintenance workshop, or on the ramp.’
Lee R. (circa. 1997) New Directions in Air Safety
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bendigo, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue I have with the report is the lack of investigation into the Right Hand fuel tank indication of being half full but the actual fuel found to be only 25 L. (total).
Read this:
https://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182907-1.html
HZE was produced in 1985 so some of that information is irrelevant but the filling of the tanks - very!
A little bit of research added to the ATSB report would have provided valuable knowledge to the readers.
And that would help keep your head in the game.........
Read this:
https://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182907-1.html
HZE was produced in 1985 so some of that information is irrelevant but the filling of the tanks - very!
A little bit of research added to the ATSB report would have provided valuable knowledge to the readers.
And that would help keep your head in the game.........
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And forget anything useful on piston engines......the lack of anyone who knows them is startling. Of course some think they do but they would fail an APS fun test. Many posters on here could do better.
Short answer? Resources. So they pick and choose based on criteria available on the ATSB website.
Short term profit and greed is why we cant have anything nice in Australia anymore. The profit & cost margin.
How do we as a society accept this? How can we accept undermanned authorities when we bring in taxi drivers on working visas.
Its messed up.
It takes a well lead, hard working, forward thinking committed society to make sacrifices to have good infrastructure, beautiful and liveable cities and well run authorities that are not tied at the wrists.
Anything worthwhile, long lasting and first-world takes sacrifice and commitment and and we in Australia no longer have the willingness nor guts to do it. We are selling out to the lowest bidder, for the least cost and greatest profit. In my lifetime we have started to become third world.
Our authorities are run at bare bones, our once beautiful city buildings, parks and skylines are being mined by property developers, our infrastucture is selling to private hands.
There is nothing nice for the long term for the general citizens of our country in this.
The classic example; Airport Security and Border Control - security and CBP queues doubled out the entrance doors but fewer than half the lanes active because of understaffing.
Public transport: Sydney about $3 to get from Sydney to the last stop on the train line beforre Sydney airport. Another $12 on the fare if you take the next stop to the airport - MacQuarie Bank owns Sydney Airport.
Melbourne: no public transport link at all!
I want a government that can govern, cities that belong to the people.
How do we as a society accept this? How can we accept undermanned authorities when we bring in taxi drivers on working visas.
Its messed up.
It takes a well lead, hard working, forward thinking committed society to make sacrifices to have good infrastructure, beautiful and liveable cities and well run authorities that are not tied at the wrists.
Anything worthwhile, long lasting and first-world takes sacrifice and commitment and and we in Australia no longer have the willingness nor guts to do it. We are selling out to the lowest bidder, for the least cost and greatest profit. In my lifetime we have started to become third world.
Our authorities are run at bare bones, our once beautiful city buildings, parks and skylines are being mined by property developers, our infrastucture is selling to private hands.
There is nothing nice for the long term for the general citizens of our country in this.
The classic example; Airport Security and Border Control - security and CBP queues doubled out the entrance doors but fewer than half the lanes active because of understaffing.
Public transport: Sydney about $3 to get from Sydney to the last stop on the train line beforre Sydney airport. Another $12 on the fare if you take the next stop to the airport - MacQuarie Bank owns Sydney Airport.
Melbourne: no public transport link at all!
I want a government that can govern, cities that belong to the people.
Next thing you'll be telling us that public infrastructure should be returned to public ownership!
Back when airports and ground transport infrastructure were owned and run by public institutions, how many millionaires were making their millions out of that infrastructure? None! See how inefficient that is?
Now there are plenty of millionaires making their millions milking these assets. That's efficient!
Utopia is a documentary.
Back when airports and ground transport infrastructure were owned and run by public institutions, how many millionaires were making their millions out of that infrastructure? None! See how inefficient that is?
Now there are plenty of millionaires making their millions milking these assets. That's efficient!
Utopia is a documentary.
While you're all busy criticising the delivery, how about thinking of the message and the audience?
If a major job of such a report is to inform, then it's told a fair story - particularly to newer recruits to GA. Unsubtly we can see from this:
(1) What can happen when the juice runs out
(2) That Cessna's and other craft with similar fuel systems can effectively cross feed between tanks when not level
(3) That the end result of (2) can mean you end up with far less fuel than you originally thought
(4) That some tank and filler siting mean that you may never fill a tank properly if the craft is not level
(5) Before taxiing out on a longer jaunt check you should check your fuel levels with a dipstick (on a level surface!)
Personally I've often wondered when reading of similar issues why more people don't do (5)?
As to the quality of the report, well we can all do better, and if I wasn't being the devil's advocate I might have a negative comment or two, but in the end it's the same old story that's only been told hundreds of time before in hundreds of such reports so perhaps they've just run out ways of saying the same thing
FP.
If a major job of such a report is to inform, then it's told a fair story - particularly to newer recruits to GA. Unsubtly we can see from this:
(1) What can happen when the juice runs out
(2) That Cessna's and other craft with similar fuel systems can effectively cross feed between tanks when not level
(3) That the end result of (2) can mean you end up with far less fuel than you originally thought
(4) That some tank and filler siting mean that you may never fill a tank properly if the craft is not level
(5) Before taxiing out on a longer jaunt check you should check your fuel levels with a dipstick (on a level surface!)
Personally I've often wondered when reading of similar issues why more people don't do (5)?
As to the quality of the report, well we can all do better, and if I wasn't being the devil's advocate I might have a negative comment or two, but in the end it's the same old story that's only been told hundreds of time before in hundreds of such reports so perhaps they've just run out ways of saying the same thing
FP.
Wouldn't the report have been better if it had stated the short points in your post?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
I would have to agree that that was a fairly poorly written report, seemed like they were waffling on to get the word count up.
Haven't flown a C210 for a long time, but the fuel selector from memory was left tank, off and right tank, but no position for feeding from both tanks as mentioned in the ATSB report?
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think the reporting is shoddy there, try reading some of the ATSB rail incident reports. I have been personally involved with more that one fatal incident and others as well which where damning on the employer but not a single f was given by either the ATSB or the prosecutors.
Certainly not being an apologist here but, as is the way these days, the report is effectively anonymised as it issued by an organisation. However it will have most likely been written by an individual and (hopefully) reviewed by another...
Individuals are not born with the ability to write concise, accurate, and informative reports - these things take time and experience. Additionally in a world such as we have today where everyone's sensibilities need to be taken into account, writing public reports is not made any easier than it was, to my mind the converse is true.
Perhaps then this could have been a 'first report' by someone? Certainly if I were allocating lead investigatory and reporting roles to someone who had not had such a role before then this would be the type of accident I'd choose - non-fatal, and to a certain extent not that uncommon.
Regardless I think it still told sufficient a story to get the points out of it I earlier elucidated. Yes you could shorten it and make it more succinct, but then I'm sure you'd all complain there wasn't enough background or something
FP.
Thanks gassed budgie, only ever flown the C210M and N models.
Re C210 fuel, 60 litres per hour was a good ball park figure, no don't know how get 75litres per hour.
Re C210 fuel, 60 litres per hour was a good ball park figure, no don't know how get 75litres per hour.