Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment

Old 16th Jul 2018, 23:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,163
Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment

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:

Preliminary report published: 30 June 2017

At about 1503 CST on 30 May 2017, Cessna 441 Conquest aircraft, registered VH-XMJ (XMJ), and operated by Rossair Charter, departed Adelaide International Airport, for Renmark Airport, South Australia.

On-board were:
  • an inductee pilot undergoing a proficiency check, flying from the front left control seat
  • the chief pilot conducting the proficiency check, and under assessment for the company training and checking role for Cessna 441 aircraft, seated in the front right control seat
  • a flying operations inspector from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, observing and assessing the flight from the first passenger seat directly behind the two control seats.

Each occupant was qualified to operate the Cessna 441.
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?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 00:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Perth
Posts: 130
Far 135 competency check

Its called ua competency check in the US... but essentially the same thing, see:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/135.293
part b.
Progressive is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 00:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
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 may not answer your CFR question directly, but why would you do asymmetric training in the air when you have simulator facilities available for that purpose? For example. https://www.simulator.com/turboprop/cessna

Last edited by georgeeipi; 17th Jul 2018 at 00:31.
georgeeipi is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 01:48
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,658
but why would you do asymmetric training in the air when you have simulator facilities available for that purpose?
This might be the reason:

  • a flying operations inspector from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, observing and assessing the flight from the first passenger seat directly behind the two control seats.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 01:58
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,865
why would you do asymmetric training in the air when you have simulator facilities available for that purpose
While not the perfect solution, there is probably a flight safety case for using a KingAir or Metro simulator both of which which are already available in Australia if the prime purpose is to assess the applicants competency at conducting a simulated engine failure on take off.

The physical handling characteristics such as identification, foot-load, V-speeds and instrument indications would be similar even though switch positions may be different. Pulling back a throttle to simulate an engine failure after lift off in any turbo prop twin is fraught with danger as the statistics have shown already.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 03:06
  #6 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,333
Who was actually logging command time?
tail wheel is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 05:24
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by tail wheel View Post
Who was actually logging command time?
Clearly it would have been the Right seat pilot who was conducting the training of the Left seat pilot.
AmarokGTI is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 06:16
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Centaurus View Post
While not the perfect solution, there is probably a flight safety case for using a KingAir or Metro simulator both of which which are already available in Australia if the prime purpose is to assess the applicants competency at conducting a simulated engine failure on take off.

The physical handling characteristics such as identification, foot-load, V-speeds and instrument indications would be similar even though switch positions may be different. Pulling back a throttle to simulate an engine failure after lift off in any turbo prop twin is fraught with danger as the statistics have shown already.
According to "Prescription of aircraft and rating -- CASR Part 61 (Edition 5) Instrument 2018." Schedule 10 says that if you did the proficiency check in a King Air or Metro (and simulator) the licence entry is MEA.
However, in Schedule 13, we find that A C441 requires training in a C441 Aeroplane (or Simulator) to be declared proficient in a C441.

So my understanding of this legal quagmire is even if you used the King Air or Metro simulator in Melbourne and had MEA proficiency stamped in your licence, you would still have to go out and risk your life and the examiners life in a C441 to be declared proficient. (Of course I could be wrong because I haven't read every single clause of the CASR to see if there is something that overrides the bits that I have read)
georgeeipi is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 22:30
  #9 (permalink)  
FOI
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Aust
Posts: 31
How:
1. Can a situation be tolerated where neither pilot operating in a control seat be qualified (as in deemed proficient) for the activity being undertaken?
Why:
1. Would you not for the purposes of assessment, have a qualified Examiner operating as pseudo student.
FOI is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 22:34
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,163
So, would this be required under the FAA requirements?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2018, 23:07
  #11 (permalink)  
FOI
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Aust
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
So, would this be required under the FAA requirements?
I’m not sure it even requires that level of forensic analysis.

CAR 228 refers?

Was either Pilot authorised under CASR Part 61 to act as PIC whilst simulating an engine failure in the aeroplane?
The obvious solution to such a question would be addressed with point 2 of my post above.

Someone at the regulator would clearly disagree with my rationale here, and believes they acted in accordance with a mandate of “safe skies for all”.
FOI is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 00:03
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,520
What legal requirement is there for a low level / slow asymmetric cut?

Restrict inflight asymmetric ops to high speeds and altitudes. Then if there is no simulator on type, then as Centaurus suggests above, do the V1 octopus dance in a different sim. Metro, king air, Saab, Sure they’re different, but they yaw the same way, need the same type control inputs to keep it straight etc.

In the real world every engine failure is different, based on environmental, engine, loading etc. As such you’re not training nor checking to assess a perfect sequence with x degrees of rudder input and y degrees of aileron - you’re seeing how the pilot identifies the unexpected situation, assesses how much input and adjusts accordingly.

I’ve heard of at least one operator doing it this way on a turboprop with no sim.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 00:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by FOI View Post


I’m not sure it even requires that level of forensic analysis.

CAR 228 refers?

Was either Pilot authorised under CASR Part 61 to act as PIC whilst simulating an engine failure in the aeroplane?
The obvious solution to such a question would be addressed with point 2 of my post above.

Someone at the regulator would clearly disagree with my rationale here, and believes they acted in accordance with a mandate of “safe skies for all”.

FOI, I am actually in the process of trying to understand the regulations at the moment so this is of interest.
So correct me if I am wrong:

CAR 228(a) & (b)(ii) states (paraphrased) that "A person commits an offence if the person manipulates the controls of a registered aircraft during flight and is not authorised under Part 61 of CASR to pilot the aircraft."

The preliminary ATSB accident report says "Each occupant was qualified to operate the Cessna 441",. Presumably according to CAR 228 all is ok with this arrangement since all 3 on board are authorised to 'pilot the aircraft'.

I then mined into Part 61 and there are a number of clauses in there about the holder of an instrument rating undergoing proficiency checks. But the most relevant seems to be
61.1255 which says "A flight examiner is authorised to conduct an instrument proficiency check."
So did the occupant in the right-hand seat already hold an examiner rating? Because 61.1265 (2) (a) seems to suggest that if he holds a type rating on the aircraft and he holds the examiner rating then he is able to conduct the proficiency check as well.
georgeeipi is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 00:43
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,700
On the basis that it is preferable to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, the way I would run a charter operation with a Conquest - or any light twin - these days would be:
Annual practice session, then IR-MEA test in a full motion simulator - King Air or Metro being the ideal weapons because they are as demanding as anything one is likely to encounter in charter. To satisfy the CASA requirements, to induct a new pilot I would cover appropriate differences training in the classroom, on the ramp, and during revenue line operations. ICUS is required anyway for a new pilot. An annual route check in which emergencies may be discussed but of course not practiced meets the other requirements. This approach costs the operator nothing other than the annual simulator and check pilot being on board during revenue flights.
Put all this in the Company Training & Checking exposition and adhere to it. Adhering to it is the key because any sniff that all this in the manual is mere window dressing and CASA will rightly crucify you.
To those operators that say sending pilots to simulator once a year is too expensive, I would say you can't afford to be in aviation, you have no place in aviation, get the [email protected]#k out of aviation.
If CASA objected to the Exposition I would argue 'SAFETY' and take 'em on. Force them to mandate asymmetric in the actual aeroplane.
There would not be an FOI in the system so stupid, surely?.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 00:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 774
What legal requirement is there for a low level / slow asymmetric cut?

Restrict inflight asymmetric ops to high speeds and altitudes.
Having been part of a check recently which involved CASA, it seems they have adopted this approach somewhat. There was a strict stipulation that there were to be no engine failure emergencies conducted below 1,000 feet AGL and I believe this was a reaction to this particular accident.
Captain Nomad is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 01:02
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Mach E Avelli View Post
On the basis that it is preferable to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, the way I would run a charter operation with a Conquest - or any light twin - these days would be:
Annual practice session, then IR-MEA test in a full motion simulator - King Air or Metro being the ideal weapons because they are as demanding as anything one is likely to encounter in charter. To satisfy the CASA requirements, to induct a new pilot I would cover appropriate differences training in the classroom, on the ramp, and during revenue line operations. ICUS is required anyway for a new pilot. An annual route check in which emergencies may be discussed but of course not practiced meets the other requirements. This approach costs the operator nothing other than the annual simulator and check pilot being on board during revenue flights.
Put all this in the Company Training & Checking exposition and adhere to it. Adhering to it is the key because any sniff that all this in the manual is mere window dressing and CASA will rightly crucify you.
To those operators that say sending pilots to simulator once a year is too expensive, I would say you can't afford to be in aviation, you have no place in aviation, get the [email protected]#k out of aviation.
If CASA objected to the Exposition I would argue 'SAFETY' and take 'em on. Force them to mandate asymmetric in the actual aeroplane.
There would not be an FOI in the system so stupid, surely?.
Mach, I think that's a great approach. Just wondering if there is a clause in Part 61 that would catch you out? The Conquest needs a type rating and doing the asymmetrics in a King Air is a different type rating. Can you get away with just 'talking' about assymetrics in a Conquest and never actually pulling the engine? (I mean doing it your way is my preference, but is there a clause we are contravening somewhere?)
georgeeipi is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 01:29
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,700
Georgee, neither the Conquest nor King Air 90/200 series require a Type Rating. The King Air 350 does. It is all in the fine print, but up to 5700 kg these, and a list of other relatively complex aircraft, now fall into Multi Engine Class with differences training required. It does not help that in various places the regulations refer to types of aircraft (as in a Beech versus a Cessna 'type') but one has to read each reference in context.
I believe that operators need to set their own, sensible agenda for just what the 'differences' need to cover. Obviously engines, props, systems, limitations etc.- all of which can be done safely on the ground. Then some ICUS. Enough to satisfy the Insurers, enough to impress CASA with the thoroughness; not so much that people will put themselves in harm's way.

Captain Nomad - your recent experience with CASA highlights the sheer stupidity and pointlessness of that approach to engine failures. Typical aero club bullsh!t. What does it achieve? Unless the aircraft is right on VSSE, at max all up weight, at a limiting density altitude, gear hanging out etc all it does is give the trainee a false sense of how easy it all is. Talk about negative training! But to do otherwise in the aircraft is too risky, hence they should allow appropriate simulation in a device that exhibits comparable - or more difficult - handling.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 02:56
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by Mach E Avelli View Post
Georgee, neither the Conquest nor King Air 90/200 series require a Type Rating. The King Air 350 does. It is all in the fine print, but up to 5700 kg these, and a list of other relatively complex aircraft, now fall into Multi Engine Class with differences training required. It does not help that in various places the regulations refer to types of aircraft (as in a Beech versus a Cessna 'type') but one has to read each reference in context.
I believe that operators need to set their own, sensible agenda for just what the 'differences' need to cover. Obviously engines, props, systems, limitations etc.- all of which can be done safely on the ground. Then some ICUS. Enough to satisfy the Insurers, enough to impress CASA with the thoroughness; not so much that people will put themselves in harm's way...
.
Are you familiar with this document? https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00660
Schedule 10 sounds like it is in agreement with what you say. That is a proficiency check in a King Air or a Metro gives you a licence entry of proficiency for MEA class.
But Schedule 13 seems to say that a flight review is still required for a C441 even if you have a proficiency check for MEA class. And doing the proficiency check in a C441 only gives you a licence entry of proficiency for a C441 which is not enough for proficiency in the MEA class. (Yes, tis a quagmire but that is what we have to work with)
georgeeipi is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 03:34
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,865
ICUS is required anyway for a new pilot.
And we all know that ICUS is not worth a pinch of salt in terms of valuable decision making experience. It is nothing more than dual instruction jazzed up to sound like pseudo command.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2018, 05:23
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,700
ICUS has been done to death elsewhere, but in context here we are talking about an acceptable means of compliance with Part 61. Depending on whether it is a simple light twin charter or a high capacity RPT operation, after endorsement somehow a pilot must get anything from 10 to 75 hours on type before being allowed to go out as PIC. How else can it be done except by ICUS?
Only one pilot on board can log command. That would be me sitting on the right and hopefully sitting on my hands if I was inducting a new pilot. The inductee would be in the left seat, doing what the Yanks call LOE (line operating experience) or what we sometimes call line training. That is NOT dual. Dual is the stuff students get at the aero club, and perhaps a CPL gets in a new aeroplane type before the pax are loaded. In a commercial environment (such as being discussed here) there are paying customers down the back who would be highly p!ssed off to think that dual was happening up front. During ICUS/LOE/whatever you want to call it the pilot under training IS making decisions. There is also nothing wrong with a company having an ICUS policy for senior first officers when flying with appropriate training captains. It makes sound commercial sense to allow this as part of the pre-command assessment process.
It is when pilots dress up ICUS to look like real PIC on their c.v. that my bullsh!t meter pegs.
Mach E Avelli is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.