Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been claimed that one of the reasons Rossair has gone into administration is because of the terrible accident they had.
This is from the ATSB preliminary report investigation number AO-2017-057:
Can anyone advise if that type of company training and checking assessment would be required in the USA on a proficiency check for similar charter pilots, or is this a unique Australian requirement?
This is from the ATSB preliminary report investigation number AO-2017-057:
Can anyone advise if that type of company training and checking assessment would be required in the USA on a proficiency check for similar charter pilots, or is this a unique Australian requirement?
I'm in Canada but believe its almost identical. It's normal for a "check airman" or Canadian ACP, approved Check Pilot to "do rides" which are PPC, Pilot Proficiency Check which generally combines an IPC or Instrument Proficiency Check. In the USA , you get either a log book endorsement or some proof that it was done. In Canada its signed off on a competency page. Interestingly, an IPC done in the USA (or Australia) by a CFI -ii (Instrument Instructor) its valid in Canada but, a Canadian IPC is not valid in the USA.
Actual aircraft training only uses simulations at altitude. The days of simulated engine failures at low altitude are gone.
I recall one training instructor in Cairns who had flipped I think more than one aircraft during simulated single engine failures. Yes, he is dead now, flew into a mountain. That's another story.
If you want real emergencies you do them in a Simulator. I last went to Flight Safety and its very realistic, V1 Very Loud engine failures, KaBang.. it scares the living daylights out of you.... The sim is generally programed to fail an exact speed.
I have my own sim set up to do that, just put it at altitude, hot day, overload it a bit, and try to fly it to 400 feet.
The SIM is the only way to go for V1 Cuts, in the sim, they press a button and the cockpit fills with smoke, a resourceful instructor has a cigarette lighter and plastic electrical wire to get the right odour...
Take your leg of the trim wheel and you get a trim run away, don't look at the guages, and the oil boils...
Some companies seem to have insurance requirements for Simulator. Others just do it old school
but demand more PIC time and experience which, is getting harder to obtain.
The SIM is the only way to go for V1 Cuts, in the sim, they press a button and the cockpit fills with smoke, a resourceful instructor has a cigarette lighter and plastic electrical wire to get the right odour...
Take your leg of the trim wheel and you get a trim run away, don't look at the guages, and the oil boils...
Take your leg of the trim wheel and you get a trim run away, don't look at the guages, and the oil boils...
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncanny, the timing of this most recent of exemptions...
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...n-control+seat
ChoppaGirl:
I am not surprised by the lack of reaction to the latest piece of legislation from the Regulators.
For many of us, this isn't our first roll in the hay with the Regulator. This introduction of rushed, arse-covering regulation only points to where the blame will be laid in the final report.
In my honest, but cynical, opinion.
I now also note that CASA personnel are not permitted to ride in GA aircraft without specific approval from their higher ups. Way to project faith in GA, aircraft maintenance, and pilot training standards.....NOT.
I am not surprised by the lack of reaction to the latest piece of legislation from the Regulators.
For many of us, this isn't our first roll in the hay with the Regulator. This introduction of rushed, arse-covering regulation only points to where the blame will be laid in the final report.
In my honest, but cynical, opinion.
I now also note that CASA personnel are not permitted to ride in GA aircraft without specific approval from their higher ups. Way to project faith in GA, aircraft maintenance, and pilot training standards.....NOT.
I now also note that CASA personnel are not permitted to ride in GA aircraft without specific approval from their higher ups
I'm going back a couple of decades, but our FOI was not permitted to fly on line flights in any capacity, even observing as a pax. Is this normal? His only flying was renewing the C & T qualifications, so had no understanding of what ACTUALLY occurred on the line. Perhaps that was the point, ignorance is bliss.
Everything old is new again (or is it the other way around?)
I can recall when, in a certain district office, the FOIs would only do NVFR checks in daylight ---- but at least they did ride in the aeroplane.
At least it is more jobs for ATOs --- I hope, but they are getting a bit thin on the ground, too??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember talking to an FOI when they had an office at Moorabbin many years ago. In those days recurrent training by FOI's was allowed. This FOI discovered that when he rang a flying school to book an aircraft for his own personal practice, he would be told no aircraft were available. He discovered it was because he had a reputation for recording defects in the maintenance release which upset the aircraft owners. Problem fixed - don't hire aircraft out to FOI's. Nothing couldn't be proven and the flying school operator knew this
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the 80's, I as a qualified instructor commenced work with an operator on a twin turbine greater than 5700Kg. I was one of the initial Captains and we did our endorsements with a factory pilot overseas. When the other Capt moved on, I obtained C&T on the type. To do this, I had to fly with an FOI who was already endorsed (by the other Capt), and carry out various endorsement sequences as part of the training approvals etc. The FOI then flew the aircraft on a regular basis and the then CAA paid for the aircraft use. Often he would attend a base check conducted by me, then do my IR renewal followed by a base check on the FOI. We would then stand down the F/O and he would operate the line flight scheduled for that day. It all worked very well. Being greater than 5700kg we did not have some of the performance issues that the Conquest or similar types (<5700kg) might have. Many of the comments on this thread are very valid and it shows that training in the aircraft must be managed in a safe and proper manner.
Being greater than 5700kg we did not have some of the performance issues that the Conquest or similar types (<5700kg) might have.
Many of the comments on this thread are very valid and it shows that training in the aircraft must be managed in a safe and proper manner.
Although it's 30+ years since I flew one, I do remember we'd brief pretty thoroughly on how an engine failure would be simulated and what actions were required following a simulated failure to ensure the simulated problem did not become a greater problem. It could be quite a handful if you created more drag than was a reasonable representation of an engine failure.
I did over 3000 hours in the Conquest and, not surprising given my chosen name on this forum, thoroughly enjoyed flying it.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Family of Rossair Renmark plane crash victim wants ‘highly questionable’ training routine banned
Elizabeth Henson, The Advertiser
October 28, 2018 9:13pm
THE family of a pilot killed in the 2017 Renmark plane crash wants a training exercise they believe contributed to the accident to be banned.
Rossair chief pilot Martin Scott, 48, experienced pilot Paul Daw, 65, and Civil Aviation Safety Authority officer Stephen Guerin, 56, were on board a nine-seat Rossair aircraft when it crashed into scrubland 4km from the Renmark Aerodrome on May 30, 2017.
Mr Daw was performing an induction flight at the time of the incident.
The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau is investigating the crash and has previously revealed the Cessna Conquest plane was in the air for only 60 to 90 seconds and reached an altitude of about 150m before it plunged to the ground.
Mr Scott’s widow Terri Hutchinson, who is also a pilot, his father Joe and brother Nigel have raised concerns over a training routine they believe played a factor in the crash, saying it “should have been discontinued long ago”.
Details on the routine have not been released due to the matter still being under investigation.
Rossair chief pilot Martin Scott was killed in the Renmark crash.
Mr Scott’s widow Terri Hutchinson and son Andy with their dog Sumo. Picture: Naomi Jellicoe
In a statement issued to The Advertiser, they said it had “always been our sole purpose to ensure that lessons are learned from this (crash)”.
“We have spent considerable time and effort researching this, and similar training accidents worldwide, to attempt to come to some understanding as to why this accident occurred; and whether it could have been prevented,” they wrote.
“It seems without doubt that a major influence on this accident was the highly questionable training routine, which could and should have been discontinued long ago.
“It is our understanding that, to date, no safety notices have been issued in respect of this accident, which under the circumstances appears to be quite remarkable.”
The ATSB issues Safety Advisory Notices about incidents such as crashes to prevent recurrence.
ATSB Transport Safety Investigators at the crash site of the triple fatal Rossair plane crash near Renmark. Picture: Dylan Coker
“Sadly, it seems that apart from those directly affected by this accident, no one really seems to care. It would appear to be just another statistic for CASA, ATSB and the Australian Government to ponder on, but to do little to avoid such an accident ever happening again,” Mr Scott’s family said.
The family also expressed disappointment in the ATSB’s handling of its investigation into the crash.
“We are well aware of the issues surrounding confidentiality and ATSB’s requirement to ensure those involved are able to speak freely, without retribution, however by failing to provide us with even basic updates, we question the level of transparency and involvement which we can expect from them,” they said.
“All those concerned lost a great deal that day and it is disappointing to realise that the organisation we rely on to support us seem to be unable to deliver on their responsibilities. It is simply not good enough.”
They said they had not received regular updates on the inquiry and believed the investigation was both underfunded and under-resourced.
The ATSB had been expected to finalise its investigation into the crash in May this year however it announced at the time the report would not be ready until “early 2019.
The family said it found out “by accident” that it now may not be finalised until mid-2019.
“On raising the issue with ATSB, we were informed by the manager leading the investigation that the delay was due to the Investigator in Charge (IIC) requiring additional resources,” they said.
ATSB transport safety investigators at the crash site near Renmark. Picture: Dylan Coker
“The current IIC has been in place since April, yet only now does he consider he has insufficient staff to be able to complete the investigation within the anticipated time frame.
“There has been plenty of opportunity to ensure that sufficient personnel were in place, after all the accident occurred some 18 months ago, but clearly ATSB are simply not proactive enough for an investigation of this complexity.”
On Thursday afternoon, ATSB transport safety executive director Patrick Hornby said “the priority of the ATSB is always the thoroughness of an investigation to ensure that any safety issues are identified and addressed”.
“I regret this investigation has required additional time and I acknowledge that this can cause uncertainty for directly involved parties,” he said.
“The ATSB will continue to liaise with all directly involved parties.”
Elizabeth Henson, The Advertiser
October 28, 2018 9:13pm
THE family of a pilot killed in the 2017 Renmark plane crash wants a training exercise they believe contributed to the accident to be banned.
Rossair chief pilot Martin Scott, 48, experienced pilot Paul Daw, 65, and Civil Aviation Safety Authority officer Stephen Guerin, 56, were on board a nine-seat Rossair aircraft when it crashed into scrubland 4km from the Renmark Aerodrome on May 30, 2017.
Mr Daw was performing an induction flight at the time of the incident.
The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau is investigating the crash and has previously revealed the Cessna Conquest plane was in the air for only 60 to 90 seconds and reached an altitude of about 150m before it plunged to the ground.
Mr Scott’s widow Terri Hutchinson, who is also a pilot, his father Joe and brother Nigel have raised concerns over a training routine they believe played a factor in the crash, saying it “should have been discontinued long ago”.
Details on the routine have not been released due to the matter still being under investigation.
Rossair chief pilot Martin Scott was killed in the Renmark crash.
Mr Scott’s widow Terri Hutchinson and son Andy with their dog Sumo. Picture: Naomi Jellicoe
In a statement issued to The Advertiser, they said it had “always been our sole purpose to ensure that lessons are learned from this (crash)”.
“We have spent considerable time and effort researching this, and similar training accidents worldwide, to attempt to come to some understanding as to why this accident occurred; and whether it could have been prevented,” they wrote.
“It seems without doubt that a major influence on this accident was the highly questionable training routine, which could and should have been discontinued long ago.
“It is our understanding that, to date, no safety notices have been issued in respect of this accident, which under the circumstances appears to be quite remarkable.”
The ATSB issues Safety Advisory Notices about incidents such as crashes to prevent recurrence.
ATSB Transport Safety Investigators at the crash site of the triple fatal Rossair plane crash near Renmark. Picture: Dylan Coker“Sadly, it seems that apart from those directly affected by this accident, no one really seems to care. It would appear to be just another statistic for CASA, ATSB and the Australian Government to ponder on, but to do little to avoid such an accident ever happening again,” Mr Scott’s family said.
The family also expressed disappointment in the ATSB’s handling of its investigation into the crash.
“We are well aware of the issues surrounding confidentiality and ATSB’s requirement to ensure those involved are able to speak freely, without retribution, however by failing to provide us with even basic updates, we question the level of transparency and involvement which we can expect from them,” they said.
“All those concerned lost a great deal that day and it is disappointing to realise that the organisation we rely on to support us seem to be unable to deliver on their responsibilities. It is simply not good enough.”
They said they had not received regular updates on the inquiry and believed the investigation was both underfunded and under-resourced.
The ATSB had been expected to finalise its investigation into the crash in May this year however it announced at the time the report would not be ready until “early 2019.
The family said it found out “by accident” that it now may not be finalised until mid-2019.
“On raising the issue with ATSB, we were informed by the manager leading the investigation that the delay was due to the Investigator in Charge (IIC) requiring additional resources,” they said.
ATSB transport safety investigators at the crash site near Renmark. Picture: Dylan Coker
“The current IIC has been in place since April, yet only now does he consider he has insufficient staff to be able to complete the investigation within the anticipated time frame.
“There has been plenty of opportunity to ensure that sufficient personnel were in place, after all the accident occurred some 18 months ago, but clearly ATSB are simply not proactive enough for an investigation of this complexity.”
On Thursday afternoon, ATSB transport safety executive director Patrick Hornby said “the priority of the ATSB is always the thoroughness of an investigation to ensure that any safety issues are identified and addressed”.
“I regret this investigation has required additional time and I acknowledge that this can cause uncertainty for directly involved parties,” he said.
“The ATSB will continue to liaise with all directly involved parties.”
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested in opinions. Especially in light of recent 7.30 report. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pi...fatal/10444124
Interested in opinions. Especially in light of recent 7.30 report. https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dying-pi...fatal/10444124
There is nothing wrong with practicing engine failures after take-off in a Conquest providing everyone on board knows what they are doing.
I question the competence of all 3 pilots on board the aircraft that day to do what they were doing, and I question their judgement and professionalism in planning and conducting the flight as it occurred.
Biggest issue is a lack of shared resources and mentoring in the GA industry. Once upon a time CASA would have provided some of that expertise and wisdom but the Department is denuded of experience with very few truly experienced pilots left. The operators are all living on the edge and very few are willing to share techniques and methods with competitors.
I have it on good authority that a recognised industry expert on type was going to do some training with Martin Scott to develop his C&T skills and knowledge on the type, but that training was cancelled to save money and the CASA inspector may have been motivated to save Rossair some coin.
I have been training pilots on the C441 for 3-4 years and I still ring a couple of very experienced mentors to discuss what I am doing and how I am doing it.
If the Regulator was not so tied up with the self-imposed administrative fallout and workload created by Part 61/141/142 they could invest their resources and (remaining) expertise into GA Check & Training Masterclasses to actually, you know, IMPROVE safety in General Aviation.
To say "no lessons have been learnt" from Martin's death is not true - it just means that as usual the industry is far more mature and advanced than our second-rate regulator.
More importantly, we are finding ways to still achieve the training outcomes without killing people.
Choppa I am very very sorry for your loss.
I question the competence of all 3 pilots on board the aircraft that day to do what they were doing, and I question their judgement and professionalism in planning and conducting the flight as it occurred.
Biggest issue is a lack of shared resources and mentoring in the GA industry. Once upon a time CASA would have provided some of that expertise and wisdom but the Department is denuded of experience with very few truly experienced pilots left. The operators are all living on the edge and very few are willing to share techniques and methods with competitors.
I have it on good authority that a recognised industry expert on type was going to do some training with Martin Scott to develop his C&T skills and knowledge on the type, but that training was cancelled to save money and the CASA inspector may have been motivated to save Rossair some coin.
I have been training pilots on the C441 for 3-4 years and I still ring a couple of very experienced mentors to discuss what I am doing and how I am doing it.
If the Regulator was not so tied up with the self-imposed administrative fallout and workload created by Part 61/141/142 they could invest their resources and (remaining) expertise into GA Check & Training Masterclasses to actually, you know, IMPROVE safety in General Aviation.
To say "no lessons have been learnt" from Martin's death is not true - it just means that as usual the industry is far more mature and advanced than our second-rate regulator.
More importantly, we are finding ways to still achieve the training outcomes without killing people.
Choppa I am very very sorry for your loss.
From the videos posted online by their clients, the ride in their 172's was similar to being on a bucking horse ie like a cowboy. Having seen the videos, I find that type of flying questionable. See other threads on here in relation to that.
Last edited by Cloudee; 1st Nov 2018 at 02:08.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA lost the plot years ago, when beaurocrats took hold of it . CASA is not about safety, it’s about administrative process to ensure the processes are processed in accordance with the unwritten processes and policies of the day. Any improvements in aviation safety is purely coincidental!! Just have a look at the latest annual report, less inspectors employed each year, but the total number of staff remains the same.
Flying directly into a setting sun would almost certainly have been a contributing factor. I'm still troubled by the 40 second level segment, it's a long time. All the levers were in the full forward position when found in the wreckage, I'm not convinced yet that there wasn't a blade angle/negative torgue sensing issue. A fine pitch blade angle at max power would produce a Vmca somewhere in the order of 150 knots. Thoughts Horatio.