Brake failure at Moorabbin

[PiperCameron]

Maybe I missed seeing this posted elsewhere, if so mods please move accordingly. There are two issues in one here:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...-after-landing

Issue 1:

"The investigation report notes the operator parked its aircraft on concrete pads in the open at Moorabbin Airport, which is about 3km away from Port Phillip Bay.

“Being parked outside and operated in the vicinity of a saltwater environment would have contributed to the corrosion development,” Dr Godley noted.

“The effect of the environment was also demonstrated by the extent of corrosion observed on the brake disc assemblies of the other 6 aircraft in the operator's fleet.”

I regularly fly aircraft stored outside at Moorabbin. Sure, it ain't great, but not every aircraft has access to a hangar and tarmac would surely be better than the grass surrounding LTF's Slings.

Issue 2:

The aircraft had been fitted with an unapproved aftermarket brake disc.

Hmmm..

Here's the full report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2025-006

[43Inches]

I have to laugh at the findings about Moorabbins proximity to the bay being an issue. The fleet I was involved with had spent 20+ years parked in the open at Moorabbin, and I never heard of a brake disc corroding to pieces, that included much time parked on the grass as well. That being said a few of the fleet rotated through point cook, and salt corrosion was very evident on electrical wiring that was exposed on those aircraft, but still no serious corrosion of things like brake discs.

The aircraft had been fitted with an unapproved aftermarket brake disc.

This sounds more like the reason. PS sounds like they were approved parts, just not for that aircraft, and sounds like they may not have had sufficient barrier coating, or at least the coating eroded fairly quickly in operation.

The operator’s aircraft were parked outside on concrete pads, surrounded by gravel and grass. Rain reportedly pools on and around these pads.

So the brakes often spent time partially immersed in water? I think that may be where the problem lies.

I feel like this agrees with what we were talking about on another page. People who operate light aircraft with little to no understanding of machines, and wonder why they go broke in a few years. Lets just park our investment worth a few hundred thousands dollars in a pool of mud and water.

[djpil]

Originally Posted by PiperCameron

Maybe I missed seeing this posted elsewhere, if so mods please move accordingly. There are two issues in one here: ...

More than two.

"The operator of VH-PPY required its instructor pilots to carry out a daily inspection ..." One flight school gets instructor trainees to have work experience in the maintenance hangar to learn more about what to look for. I keep ranting about some pilots and instructors who can't check simple things like tyre pressure and condition, for example.

Instructors and pilots technical knowledge of the aircraft they operate is generally abysmal. I enjoy going through their Endorsement Questionnaires to have a laugh.

"Rain reportedly pools on and around these pads." Reminds me of a Cessna 150 some years ago which was parked in that same spot. I wiggled the rudder and heard water sloshing around. The drain hole was blocked so the rudder was almost full of water.

Originally Posted by 43Inches

I have to laugh at the findings about Moorabbins proximity to the bay being an issue. . That being said a few of the fleet rotated through point cook, and salt corrosion was very evident on electrical wiring that was exposed on those aircraft, but still no serious corrosion of things like brake discs.

Totally agree. The Decathlons experienced worse. For example, elevator drain holes are at the rear of the elevator and they were parked outside with the elevators up so retained water.

Originally Posted by 43Inches

"unapproved aftermarket brake disc" This sounds more like the reason. PS sounds like they were approved parts, just not for that aircraft

Particularly onerous regulations with the definition of approved parts for LSAs. The usual PMA parts need manufacturer's permission unlike every other aircraft. PMA parts list the aircraft types for which they are approved to be used on - quite simple to check.

Originally Posted by 43Inches

People who operate light aircraft with little to no understanding of machines, and wonder why they go broke in a few years.

I flew one aeroplane at Moorabbin a while back and put a few items on the MR plus a list of other things to look at. It spent 6+ months in maintenance to rectify.

"The maintenance organisation .... was monitoring the condition of the brakes ...." I wonder how often it was monitoring it? I believe that the maintenance organisation is at Tyabb, not Moorabbin.

[43Inches]

Reminds me of a Cessna 150 some years ago which was parked in that same spot. I wiggled the rudder and heard water sloshing around. The drain hole was blocked so the rudder was almost full of water.

We had a problem with strobe packs failing in our Pipers, couldn't work out why. After a bit of investigation it was narrowed to only the IFR and NVFR certified aircraft, which were used routinely for this purpose, but it still didn't answer why. One day a pack was being intermittent so we took it in to the hangar, the engineer looked over it, inspected the power leads, which were full of water. Still we couldn't work out where the water was coming from, we sealed overlaps that could leak and there was no evidence of leaks in rain or such. The engineer had an idea so we took one of the suspect aircraft flying and through cloud, sure enough the positive pressure under the aircraft was forcing moisture from outside the aircraft up into the rear drain holes, forming a spray straight onto the strobe pack fitted in the rear fuselage. Suggested fix, seaplane grommets, basically aft facing angled tubes so the airflow could not push the air into the holes in flight, a very cheap fix for a very costly problem. Experienced engineers are worth their weight in gold, literally, like good pilots they will save you a lot of costs and are worth paying more for.

I could think of several other similar situations where an engineer or pilot has saved an operator thousands through some proactive fault finding, which can not be found in a maintenance manual or tech course.

I always enjoyed working with engineers on problems, it felt like a team effort with excellent rewards when you solved an issue, and pilots and engineers definitely come at things from different angles so it can work really well when it's an obscure problem.

I just remembered another interesting incident. A student returned from an area solo in a 152, handing me the keys and said the aircraft was "running a little rough" and "down a little bit on power", not unusual to get reports like that, could be a bit of carby ice, or maybe lead fouling. In any case the student didn't seem that phased about it. A moment later we get a phone call from a concerned PPL who flew regularly at the company, they said they had "heard XXX fly overhead and it sounded very sick". So that prompted us to get the engineers to have a look immediately. They jump in, start the engine which immediately starts clanging like there is something seriously wrong and shut it down. Straight into the hangar, after not long the verdict, a recent overhaul had fitted the wrong pushrods, too long. One cylinder the rods had completely stopped working, meaning the engine was running on 3 cylinders. When we quized the student further he stated, "yeah it was running very rough and I needed full throttle just to maintain altitude back to the field"

[aroa]

Not uncommon that some folk know of a problem but are not interested in the why. The guy that walked from the rough running, May have hired it again and flown away to crash someplace. Those engineers who think of causes and detect the problem are good value. Those that don’t think it through can be costly

[BronteExperimental]

Can someone explain how we get a detailed report (lab analysis, metallurgy and all) about not parking an airplane in the bullrushes (and another one about not leaving the pitot cover on your privately operated experimental) yet we get nothing about the cirrus thrown rod?

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by BronteExperimental

Can someone explain how we get a detailed report (lab analysis, metallurgy and all) about not parking an airplane in the bullrushes (and another one about not leaving the pitot cover on your privately operated experimental) yet we get nothing about the cirrus thrown rod?

That's easy: The first two can be worked through by any ATSB rookie-in-training, whilst the last requires an actual investigation.

I do hope they're not taking eyes off the incidents that really matter, but it seems they have been rather busy lately. I'm still expecting we'll see some unfortunate accident blamed on global warming...

[43Inches]

I do hope they're not taking eyes off the incidents that really matter, but it seems they have been rather busy lately. I'm still expecting we'll see some unfortunate accident blamed on global warming...

Well it depends if the 'increases in size and intensity' of bad weather patterns does come to pass you would expect to see accidents resulting from such. For instance, more intense thunderstorms causing turbulent structural failure, or the passage of warm fronts closer to the equator, bringing more freezing rain, therefore real severe icing, to lower latitudes. Weather patterns 'catching out' a pilot because they were not typical to the region, or maybe not even forecast due to forecast models not being up to it.

That sort of stuff could fall into the 'global warming/climate change' basket.

There is some interesting stuff going on down south that could cause some interesting weather over Australia for the next few weeks.

[BronteExperimental]

Originally Posted by PiperCameron

That's easy: The first two can be worked through by any ATSB rookie-in-training, whilst the last requires an actual investigation.

I do hope they're not taking eyes off the incidents that really matter, but it seems they have been rather busy lately. I'm still expecting we'll see some unfortunate accident blamed on global warming...

I was being tongue in cheek. They obviously decided that no investigation was warranted - for whatever reason. Most of us probably find that unacceptable but here we are.

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

Well it depends if the 'increases in size and intensity' of bad weather patterns does come to pass you would expect to see accidents resulting from such. For instance, more intense thunderstorms causing turbulent structural failure, or the passage of warm fronts closer to the equator, bringing more freezing rain, therefore real severe icing, to lower latitudes. Weather patterns 'catching out' a pilot because they were not typical to the region, or maybe not even forecast due to forecast models not being up to it.

That sort of stuff could fall into the 'global warming/climate change' basket.

How about 'brake failure because we left the aircraft parked on the grass'?? As in: 'It was okay last year, but this year water was up to the axles due global warming'?

Weather patterns should never 'catch out' a pilot because they should be using all information to hand to make proper planning decisions before ever leaving the ground. After all, there is far far more weather information available to today's pilot than there ever was even at the start of this century, let alone last, and for as long as I can remember, if there's a storm brewing it's never been good practice to fly into it just to see how bad it is.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by PiperCameron

How about 'brake failure because we left the aircraft parked on the grass'?? As in: 'It was okay last year, but this year water was up to the axles due global warming'?

Weather patterns should never 'catch out' a pilot because they should be using all information to hand to make proper planning decisions before ever leaving the ground. After all, there is far far more weather information available to today's pilot than there ever was even at the start of this century, let alone last, and for as long as I can remember, if there's a storm brewing it's never been good practice to fly into it just to see how bad it is.

Our weather modelling, and forecasting, that pilots rely on to make decisions about fuel and tracking is based on stable predictable weather patterns. If Climate change is rapid, as what is being touted, then those patterns will become less predictable. If predictability is a problem, then forecasting is an issue, and if the forecasts are wrong then a pilot could depart with not enough fuel to safely get to a destination and/or alternate. There is also the issue that an IFR pilot can fly blindly into unforecast conditions that are beyond the aircraft capabilities. Because if it's not on the forecast, then how will you know it's there, especially if flying through cloud.

We currently live in a very stable world, politics, climate change and everything else change very slowly and predictably at the moment, everything is sorta beige riding the fence. It is hard to fathom instability in anything from weather to real unstable geopolitics, and true world war. Trumpism really showed us how much we had become used to a certain way the world was going, and he rocked it, making a lot of people upset, but compared to other times in history, even Trumps games are mild.

BTW I'm not arguing what will or won't happen, just how a scenario could be blamed on such.

[BronteExperimental]

One of my kids is doing HSC. Had an assignment on the origins of the printing press in the 1500s.
the marking rubric explicitly states they have to mention climate change in their responses.
I’m reading over it and basically have to tell her that soot in the atmosphere in the 1500s is not responsible for climate change. By all means talk about health outcomes and the like but not anthropogenic atmospheric warming. They refused to take it out.
Whatever you think about the issue I can tell you first hand that EVERYTHING is taught through this lens these days. So don’t be surprised to see it as a supposed causal factor in an ATSB report at some stage.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by BronteExperimental

One of my kids is doing HSC. Had an assignment on the origins of the printing press in the 1500s.
the marking rubric explicitly states they have to mention climate change in their responses.
I’m reading over it and basically have to tell her that soot in the atmosphere in the 1500s is not responsible for climate change. By all means talk about health outcomes and the like but not anthropogenic atmospheric warming. They refused to take it out.
Whatever you think about the issue I can tell you first hand that EVERYTHING is taught through this lens these days. So don’t be surprised to see it as a supposed causal factor in an ATSB report at some stage.

Sounds like a poorly worded assignment. The Printing press does have some part to play in kicking off the industrial revolution, by being a means of mass information sharing, a step forward much the same as the internet was. The spread of knowledge led to increasing rate of invention and spread of technologies throughout the world and allowed creations like the power loom and steam engine to be quickly learned and adopted, which in turn led to the industrial revolution. Obviously anything that was involved in the industrial revolution then had significant impact on the increased use of coal and other fossil fuels to feed the factories and consumer demand.

Maybe that's what they were getting at, but its a really tenuous connection. I mean you could ask the same question of how the invention of writing or math led to industry today and its effect on the environment.

[aroa]

Are teachers these days to provide knowledge, or are they now just pipelines to include the latest fad into any subject.
Before early humans left Africa they almost got wiped out due severe drought, but survived. Even today the weather has variables but I don’t see that as a requirement when researching the history of the printing press.
Politicians and others repeat the mantras “global warming”, “rising sea levels”, “ more severe cyclones” because repetition reinforces the lie, so people think it must be true.

[BronteExperimental]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

Sounds like a poorly worded assignment. The Printing press does have some part to play in kicking off the industrial revolution, by being a means of mass information sharing, a step forward much the same as the internet was. The spread of knowledge led to increasing rate of invention and spread of technologies throughout the world and allowed creations like the power loom and steam engine to be quickly learned and adopted, which in turn led to the industrial revolution. Obviously anything that was involved in the industrial revolution then had significant impact on the increased use of coal and other fossil fuels to feed the factories and consumer demand.

Maybe that's what they were getting at, but its a really tenuous connection. I mean you could ask the same question of how the invention of writing or math led to industry today and its effect on the environment.

I probably didn’t explain the rubric properly. It’s the same for all assessments. Regardless of the topic. Ie one must write about the impact of “topic x” on climate change.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by aroa

Are teachers these days to provide knowledge, or are they now just pipelines to include the latest fad into any subject.
Before early humans left Africa they almost got wiped out due severe drought, but survived. Even today the weather has variables but I don’t see that as a requirement when researching the history of the printing press.
Politicians and others repeat the mantras “global warming”, “rising sea levels”, “ more severe cyclones” because repetition reinforces the lie, so people think it must be true.

Nothing to do with "Todays" education standards, History has always been a topic where the school/state decides what topics are to be offered. They can either offer topics that lend themselves to certain points of view or what they think will be popular and selected. The overall point in this field is to promote interest so that the student starts asking their own questions in regard to what happened and how, if the state gets involved and selects topics it's most likely to be a propaganda angle. In any case proper education means the student comes away asking questions of what they have learned, not parroting what they have been told. This leads to different points of view, which is fine if you have evidence supporting it, you can then debate what is more correct. What I see lately is a lot of hate towards different points of view rather than real constructive debate, which is usually the domain of the il-educated as they can not prove their angle so try to destroy the opposition instead.

BTW climate change is talking about sustained change in environmental conditions, not fluctuations. History records many such changes during the length of human existence, and the science says we are going through a warming shift now. The debate is not whether the climate is changing, it is more about whether we are affecting/causing it, and therefore can we change the outcome. If we can't then we have to adapt our way of life to the changes or make technological advances to cope with it. Most of us were not alive when the true pollution and grime from the Industrial revolution was in full swing, the smog and soot from coal and wood powered everything. I saw a post the other day asking why they made the interior of the Millennium Falcon an odd stained yellowy brown color, most don't remember that old plastics faded to a dirty color and the yellowy-brown stained walls in rooms/places that had heavy smoking rates in them. It's easy to forget the bad over generations that no longer have to deal with such because previous generations took action and stopped it.