CASA in the news Important Urgent - Insight on SBS on Thursday night
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too heavily edited.
Another 90 minutes might have covered it.
I only caught on because I already knew the story.
Joe (tax paying) public would have been left high and dry by this.
Still, some coverage is better than none, I suppose.
I note in the crash comic that arrived today reforms are on the horizon. Or some such lip service.
Another 90 minutes might have covered it.
I only caught on because I already knew the story.
Joe (tax paying) public would have been left high and dry by this.
Still, some coverage is better than none, I suppose.
I note in the crash comic that arrived today reforms are on the horizon. Or some such lip service.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps there is another light we could see this through, if you are a CASA FOI with minimal resources and maximum work load, perhaps you would have to rely on the subjective alittle more, the whole if it smells like 5hit it must be scenario.
Compare CASA to the FAA, the FAA has whole departments dedicated to the surveillance of suspected 5hitty operators, CASA has very little fact to deal with due to the fact they are so thin on the ground, so the only thing they can do is apply the theories of Darwinsm ( if thats a word ).
Most of these CASA FOI's are normal persons sick of flying and looking to make a difference, most here think ideas like DS's airchange changes are idiotic, but were else can they go.
We don't tell them 5hit and take them no where.
CASA can certainly be criticized for the absolute focus on the paper work side of our respective operations and the neglect of our actual flight operation,ie how these people think, the " what if scenario's".
Needless to say there are probably a few bad eggs in CASA, but most are trying to apply a reasonable and fair approach to regulating our industry, we never hear about these on pprune or SBS, and no i don't work for CASA.
Compare CASA to the FAA, the FAA has whole departments dedicated to the surveillance of suspected 5hitty operators, CASA has very little fact to deal with due to the fact they are so thin on the ground, so the only thing they can do is apply the theories of Darwinsm ( if thats a word ).
Most of these CASA FOI's are normal persons sick of flying and looking to make a difference, most here think ideas like DS's airchange changes are idiotic, but were else can they go.
We don't tell them 5hit and take them no where.
CASA can certainly be criticized for the absolute focus on the paper work side of our respective operations and the neglect of our actual flight operation,ie how these people think, the " what if scenario's".
Needless to say there are probably a few bad eggs in CASA, but most are trying to apply a reasonable and fair approach to regulating our industry, we never hear about these on pprune or SBS, and no i don't work for CASA.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L R T is right.
Many FOI's are as disillusioned as the rest of us.
Many try and impose some degree of sanity in spite of what management decrees.
Some do not, of course.
No, I don't work for them either. But the pay looks pretty good....
Many FOI's are as disillusioned as the rest of us.
Many try and impose some degree of sanity in spite of what management decrees.
Some do not, of course.
No, I don't work for them either. But the pay looks pretty good....
edit... The three post above mine were not there when I started writing this post...
.... and I do agree that everybody is human and therefore make mistakes.... read on.
I missed the program, as I've been "placed" by work somewhere for a week or so that doesn't seem to pick-up SBS out here at all, so have no idea the topics discussed on the show WRT CASA etc. I do however, catch the drift of what it may have been, and found Creamy's words....
That's quite funny, I've personally heard and seen the same allegations levelled at a couple of investigative members of CASA from the BK office about some of their "homework" and "CASA facts" (read baseless, lies and non-provable), during an investigation into a company based in the Sydney basin not very long ago.
The minute that these slanderous acts and allegations (that appear not to have to be actually substantiable by the investigator that levels them), are able to be held against the investigator that makes them and be prosecuted as such, the better for all cocerned. It is about an age-old value that is held very high by some people, and that is that no matter what you do with your life YOU, and only you, are responsible for your own actions. Investigators and CASA boffins should not be able to hide behind legal priviledge and get away with being personally non-accountable for their own actions.
It would level the playing field somewhat if there was much more emphasis on "getting it right" before laying allegations at an operator for supposedly doing something wrong.
For example...... An investigator is interviewing a person who at one stage was a pax on XYZ airlines VH-ABC a/c (say a third level airline Pa-31), that went from point D to point E, across the Great Divide on a mid summer's afternoon during some convective wx some months ago. Now this investigator has gained the names of all the pax who have travelled with XYZ Airlines over the past 12 months from a recent routine audit. Our investigator has been busy ringing odd names at random and asking all sorts of probing questions. This pax (who has never flown much in small a/c and in fact has only ever before travelled on such a/c as manufactured by companies such as Airbus or Boeing, and as such has only these airframe types to relate pax comfort and ride to), tells the investigator that the flight was very bumpy and the s/he believed that the wings were going to fall off it was so rough. She states that she thought she was going to die, and will never travel with these people again because in her opinion they were likely to die at any moment and were not safe.
Is this pax (witness statement), correct? On what grounds are there to be able to say with certainty that the witness actually has any idea that the turbulence (whether or not pilot induced), would be atypical of an a/c of this size, or indeed manufacturer. So why would an investigator be able to launch such an allegation at an operator (in a "show cause" cum "counselling" session - funny name for a lynch mob), which may indeed have no basis of fact, and yet significant wieght is placed behind such statements as they are labelled as "CASA facts" so therefore must be right, without ever being proven as baseless in a court of law. This being true as the observer has had no formal training as such in metalurgy etc, and has no real perception of design loads and the ultimate integrity of an airframe.
Much is made in this industry of having the right qualifications to do many aspects of the job, and indeed even constant checking and training is almost mandatory to retain proficiency. What qualified our "observer" pax to make such a claim as the flight was dangerous?
Or was it just uncomfortable?
A fact is something that is provable and cannot be denied.
A CASA fact doesn't appear to have to be able to be proven. Anywhere.
Knowing that some from our regulator read these pages.... Please level the playing field for all, and for god sake make it soon, so that there will still be an industry for you to actually manage.
I missed the program, as I've been "placed" by work somewhere for a week or so that doesn't seem to pick-up SBS out here at all, so have no idea the topics discussed on the show WRT CASA etc. I do however, catch the drift of what it may have been, and found Creamy's words....
.....No wonder nothing changes. What’s touted as in-depth analysis is shallow, easily refuted, easily discredited, pap....
The minute that these slanderous acts and allegations (that appear not to have to be actually substantiable by the investigator that levels them), are able to be held against the investigator that makes them and be prosecuted as such, the better for all cocerned. It is about an age-old value that is held very high by some people, and that is that no matter what you do with your life YOU, and only you, are responsible for your own actions. Investigators and CASA boffins should not be able to hide behind legal priviledge and get away with being personally non-accountable for their own actions.
It would level the playing field somewhat if there was much more emphasis on "getting it right" before laying allegations at an operator for supposedly doing something wrong.
For example...... An investigator is interviewing a person who at one stage was a pax on XYZ airlines VH-ABC a/c (say a third level airline Pa-31), that went from point D to point E, across the Great Divide on a mid summer's afternoon during some convective wx some months ago. Now this investigator has gained the names of all the pax who have travelled with XYZ Airlines over the past 12 months from a recent routine audit. Our investigator has been busy ringing odd names at random and asking all sorts of probing questions. This pax (who has never flown much in small a/c and in fact has only ever before travelled on such a/c as manufactured by companies such as Airbus or Boeing, and as such has only these airframe types to relate pax comfort and ride to), tells the investigator that the flight was very bumpy and the s/he believed that the wings were going to fall off it was so rough. She states that she thought she was going to die, and will never travel with these people again because in her opinion they were likely to die at any moment and were not safe.
Is this pax (witness statement), correct? On what grounds are there to be able to say with certainty that the witness actually has any idea that the turbulence (whether or not pilot induced), would be atypical of an a/c of this size, or indeed manufacturer. So why would an investigator be able to launch such an allegation at an operator (in a "show cause" cum "counselling" session - funny name for a lynch mob), which may indeed have no basis of fact, and yet significant wieght is placed behind such statements as they are labelled as "CASA facts" so therefore must be right, without ever being proven as baseless in a court of law. This being true as the observer has had no formal training as such in metalurgy etc, and has no real perception of design loads and the ultimate integrity of an airframe.
Much is made in this industry of having the right qualifications to do many aspects of the job, and indeed even constant checking and training is almost mandatory to retain proficiency. What qualified our "observer" pax to make such a claim as the flight was dangerous?
Or was it just uncomfortable?
A fact is something that is provable and cannot be denied.
A CASA fact doesn't appear to have to be able to be proven. Anywhere.
Knowing that some from our regulator read these pages.... Please level the playing field for all, and for god sake make it soon, so that there will still be an industry for you to actually manage.
Last edited by OpsNormal; 18th Jul 2003 at 21:41.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No amos2 you are the joke.
Maybe you could in some way redeem yourself by offering us (mere mortal plebs) your rational and achievable solution to the CASA problem.
How long before you blame it all on 198
ding
Maybe you could in some way redeem yourself by offering us (mere mortal plebs) your rational and achievable solution to the CASA problem.
How long before you blame it all on 198
ding
amos2:
"amateur pilots"? At a base wage of something in excess of $80,000 per annum, they could hardly be called "amateur!"
"amateur pilots"? With the present policy of non flying auditors I can accept a question mark over the term "pilots!"
"amateur pilots"? At a base wage of something in excess of $80,000 per annum, they could hardly be called "amateur!"
"amateur pilots"? With the present policy of non flying auditors I can accept a question mark over the term "pilots!"
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Nirvana
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I see that you employing the same strategy that you allege Torres is using in criticising specific individuals, so in doing so you are no better. I have read many of your wonderful legalised writings and I commend you on your expression and knowledge of the legislation, which you seem to embrace so passionately, that is your job and you do it well. I assume that you already work for CASA.
I have not seen the program because I am not able to, but I can sympathise with those that have been targeted by the Regulator. I have seen it so many times myself, both individuals and companies. You can defend the actions of your fellow colleagues in what ever they have done, but the simple fact is, SOME of them persecuted maliciously and vexatiously.
At the same time, your other colleagues have been commendable in the discharge of their duties, and no doubt, so do you. But this doesn’t change the fact there is or might be something rotten in the organisation and there have been individuals that have abused their powers. Might I liken it to the Police, who have continual corruption allegations and the Judges as well, i.e. Justice Murphy and Magistrate Farquar, comes to mind with the “Age” tapes from days of yore. Is CASA any different?
Now you say that pilots are all Bush Lawyers, then why does the Regulator employ them as FOI’s. First you defend them, those FOI’s in their actions, then you say that pilots are defective in their judgement and interpretation of the law, BUT this same Regulator draws upon that same unique group in order to populate its ranks. You can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps each FOI should have a legal education similar to you. It’s certainly not practicable but would be nice. One could also suggest all Police Officers become Lawyers as well, again not practicable. So Let’s get realistic here. They can be trained sufficiently enough to discharge their duties. Many other Executive Ministries and Departments of Government achieve this with their staff. So lets not pilot bash because some of them think they are Lawyers, with such a broad and baseless assertion; to say the least.
Now having said that, what is the perceived problem. Let me venture my opinion here, the Regulator does not sufficiently account for its use of its powers, nor is there Independent Oversight Tribunal to monitor the Regulator in so doing. Now before you jump out of you chair and tell me that the AAT and the Ombudsman has that role, I will say it is neither effective nor practicable. It has been shown over and over again. Yes, that is my opinion, and no doubt you can refute it until the cows come home. However, just reading what is being said in this thread clearly shows that many people in aviation have hold this opinion – yes, bush lawyers with opinions – Goodness!
What is wrong with having an oversight body similar to the Corruption Commissions for the Police. They are proving very effective. This is what is needed. I am sure many readers and contributors on this thread would agree. In other words greater accountability and transparency from the Regulator. It must be just as accessible as the Regulator, and not some remote distant organisation in Canberra. Don’t ask me how it should be structured, look to effective organisations that have achieved this.
As much as the show doesn’t meet your expectations, I would say that it is symptom of a problem, and is worthy of further investigation. That is the crux of the issue.
I have not seen the program because I am not able to, but I can sympathise with those that have been targeted by the Regulator. I have seen it so many times myself, both individuals and companies. You can defend the actions of your fellow colleagues in what ever they have done, but the simple fact is, SOME of them persecuted maliciously and vexatiously.
At the same time, your other colleagues have been commendable in the discharge of their duties, and no doubt, so do you. But this doesn’t change the fact there is or might be something rotten in the organisation and there have been individuals that have abused their powers. Might I liken it to the Police, who have continual corruption allegations and the Judges as well, i.e. Justice Murphy and Magistrate Farquar, comes to mind with the “Age” tapes from days of yore. Is CASA any different?
Now you say that pilots are all Bush Lawyers, then why does the Regulator employ them as FOI’s. First you defend them, those FOI’s in their actions, then you say that pilots are defective in their judgement and interpretation of the law, BUT this same Regulator draws upon that same unique group in order to populate its ranks. You can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps each FOI should have a legal education similar to you. It’s certainly not practicable but would be nice. One could also suggest all Police Officers become Lawyers as well, again not practicable. So Let’s get realistic here. They can be trained sufficiently enough to discharge their duties. Many other Executive Ministries and Departments of Government achieve this with their staff. So lets not pilot bash because some of them think they are Lawyers, with such a broad and baseless assertion; to say the least.
Now having said that, what is the perceived problem. Let me venture my opinion here, the Regulator does not sufficiently account for its use of its powers, nor is there Independent Oversight Tribunal to monitor the Regulator in so doing. Now before you jump out of you chair and tell me that the AAT and the Ombudsman has that role, I will say it is neither effective nor practicable. It has been shown over and over again. Yes, that is my opinion, and no doubt you can refute it until the cows come home. However, just reading what is being said in this thread clearly shows that many people in aviation have hold this opinion – yes, bush lawyers with opinions – Goodness!
What is wrong with having an oversight body similar to the Corruption Commissions for the Police. They are proving very effective. This is what is needed. I am sure many readers and contributors on this thread would agree. In other words greater accountability and transparency from the Regulator. It must be just as accessible as the Regulator, and not some remote distant organisation in Canberra. Don’t ask me how it should be structured, look to effective organisations that have achieved this.
As much as the show doesn’t meet your expectations, I would say that it is symptom of a problem, and is worthy of further investigation. That is the crux of the issue.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey BIK, how are ya?
"At least the pilot stuck to the flight manual limitations and didn't try to use the fuel remaining in the outboard tanks during the glide descent"
Are you kidding me? Never heard of the RDL matter.............
"At least the pilot stuck to the flight manual limitations and didn't try to use the fuel remaining in the outboard tanks during the glide descent"
Are you kidding me? Never heard of the RDL matter.............
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amos, if you think the present FOI's are incapable, i'd suggest 'you' step up to the plate and give it your best shot, perhaps you'll see things alittle differently.
Ops- perhaps it will happen that next time a mis-directed FOI alledges something, the defamed company will sue their arses off, this sort of accountability is essential, as a pilot who would one day like to work for CASA i feel this is the way it will head, thats why ive spent a couple of hundred dollars to establish a family trust, no one will ever touch my assets, food for thought.
Ops- perhaps it will happen that next time a mis-directed FOI alledges something, the defamed company will sue their arses off, this sort of accountability is essential, as a pilot who would one day like to work for CASA i feel this is the way it will head, thats why ive spent a couple of hundred dollars to establish a family trust, no one will ever touch my assets, food for thought.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 19th Jul 2003 at 16:16.
Torres:
Looks like the C208B engine failure’s another one the ATSB’s got wrong! According to the ATSB:
[bolding added]
The ATSB therefore suggests it was a case of wrong tool being used at the wrong time. You’re saying wrong water!
See: http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=204
And the manager of investigations and enforcement in CASA wanted to refer your non-endorsed friend’s matter to the DPP for prosecution:
[bolding added]
See page 319 (by reference to the Hansard header) at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s4904.pdf
Now there’s a story that an investigative journalist worth her salt (if there are any left) would pursue.
Bob Hawke: I used to respond to all the mistakes, misquotes, inconsistencies and illogicalities in posts like yours, but can’t be bothered any more. I concede I’m wrong. You’re right. Let’s leave it at that.
Looks like the C208B engine failure’s another one the ATSB’s got wrong! According to the ATSB:
The PT6A engine maintenance manual required desalination water-washes to be applied to both the compressor and the turbine after the last flight each day. The operator was conducting compressor washes prior to the first flight of each day, using the compressor wash ring installed on the engine. A special wash tube assembly tool for installation into the gas generator igniter boss, to enable wash solution to be introduced directly to the first-stage turbine blades, was available from the engine manufacturer. The operator was not using this tool. As a result, effective washing of the turbine blades was not achieved, allowing salt deposits to build.
The ATSB therefore suggests it was a case of wrong tool being used at the wrong time. You’re saying wrong water!
See: http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=204
And the manager of investigations and enforcement in CASA wanted to refer your non-endorsed friend’s matter to the DPP for prosecution:
Senator O'BRIEN —What would your recommendation have been?
Mr Boys —That, for scrutiny and for consistency in accordance with the procedures that have been in place, the matter should be considered for referral to the DPP.
Mr Boys —That, for scrutiny and for consistency in accordance with the procedures that have been in place, the matter should be considered for referral to the DPP.
See page 319 (by reference to the Hansard header) at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s4904.pdf
Now there’s a story that an investigative journalist worth her salt (if there are any left) would pursue.
Bob Hawke: I used to respond to all the mistakes, misquotes, inconsistencies and illogicalities in posts like yours, but can’t be bothered any more. I concede I’m wrong. You’re right. Let’s leave it at that.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that I found strange about that report was the way Doug Sprigg went to great lengths to propound his theory on engine leaning. He was flying a C207 with a Continental engine, whilst the Whyalla Airlines Chieftain he referred to had Lycomings.
What may be correct technique for one isn't necessarily the same for the other.
What may be correct technique for one isn't necessarily the same for the other.
True, the C207 engine is different to the PA31's, normally aspirated, turbo, etc. However, the effect of leaning the mixture on an engine with regard to CHT and EGT is the same...
You could do it with a lawn mower engine if you like. The results are the same.
Don't help me, I'm having enough trouble staying afloat on my own...
You could do it with a lawn mower engine if you like. The results are the same.
Don't help me, I'm having enough trouble staying afloat on my own...
BIK:
"I’d rather deal with CASA in an open court of law than be subjected to their secretive, back-room, arm-twisting machinations any day!"
I repeatedly asked to be heard and judged in a Court of Law but was denied by the CASA Regional Manager in Brisbane, that clown from Canberra (the Caribou Kid!
) and Creamie's mate Muddles - as Creampuff can confirm. No way was CASA going to allow their allegations to be tested in any real Court of Law! And as CASA were forced to lift the AOC suspension after 66 days, one assumes there was in sufficient cause to permit the matter to be judged in a Court of Law. And Creamie, don't raise the AAT ok? Your team simply failed to front, as you may well recall!
Sorry, Creamie, I should have deferred to your superior knowledge. Sadly I wasted money on a complete laboratory water analysis in Brisbane and perhaps I should not have sent the analysis to Pratt & Whitney, Montreal, who advised emphatically that Horn Island water was not to be used for engine washes. Pratt's incidentally, endorsed engine washes before the first flight of the day, using the first start as the drying run, a manufacturer's advice subsequently included in the approved System of Maintenance.
So, using a wash tube thru the left hand igniter boss and Horn Island water the engine failure could have been averted? Dam, and I spent quite a few grand on a three stage water filter system (solids, algae and reverse osmosis) in order to ensure subsequent wash water did meet Pratt's specs!
Oh, another thing for you and all those in CASA who I know are following this thread with interest. I know of only one other PT6A turbine engine operator in Australia who uses an igniter boss wash tube. For example, I watched many engine washes by an operator of Rheims 406 aircraft operated in a salt laden environment, and have never seen an igniter boss wash tube used. Why? Because the igniter requires lock wiring, which a pilot can not carry out. (The only other opertator to use an igniter boss wash tube has developed a non lock wired "safety pin" to lock the igniter in place.)
And how many operators carry out regular power recovery washes and plot the results on a trend graph?
Also, I suggest you do some reading on the reverse flow PT6A turbine engine. Engine washes via a compressor wash ring result in the wash water passing thru the gas generator and power section.
"....your non-endorsed friend’s matter to the DPP for prosecution:"
But he didn't Creamie, presumably because the case was far too weak! Besides, what is good for the Gander is not always good for the Goose - as you indicated in your claim that Prundle was vindictive towards his staff. At least he was exercising his authority evenly and fairly on both CASA staff and the operators under his supervision.
Have a great weekend - what's left of it!
"I’d rather deal with CASA in an open court of law than be subjected to their secretive, back-room, arm-twisting machinations any day!"
I repeatedly asked to be heard and judged in a Court of Law but was denied by the CASA Regional Manager in Brisbane, that clown from Canberra (the Caribou Kid!
) and Creamie's mate Muddles - as Creampuff can confirm. No way was CASA going to allow their allegations to be tested in any real Court of Law! And as CASA were forced to lift the AOC suspension after 66 days, one assumes there was in sufficient cause to permit the matter to be judged in a Court of Law. And Creamie, don't raise the AAT ok? Your team simply failed to front, as you may well recall!Sorry, Creamie, I should have deferred to your superior knowledge. Sadly I wasted money on a complete laboratory water analysis in Brisbane and perhaps I should not have sent the analysis to Pratt & Whitney, Montreal, who advised emphatically that Horn Island water was not to be used for engine washes. Pratt's incidentally, endorsed engine washes before the first flight of the day, using the first start as the drying run, a manufacturer's advice subsequently included in the approved System of Maintenance.
So, using a wash tube thru the left hand igniter boss and Horn Island water the engine failure could have been averted? Dam, and I spent quite a few grand on a three stage water filter system (solids, algae and reverse osmosis) in order to ensure subsequent wash water did meet Pratt's specs!
Oh, another thing for you and all those in CASA who I know are following this thread with interest. I know of only one other PT6A turbine engine operator in Australia who uses an igniter boss wash tube. For example, I watched many engine washes by an operator of Rheims 406 aircraft operated in a salt laden environment, and have never seen an igniter boss wash tube used. Why? Because the igniter requires lock wiring, which a pilot can not carry out. (The only other opertator to use an igniter boss wash tube has developed a non lock wired "safety pin" to lock the igniter in place.)
And how many operators carry out regular power recovery washes and plot the results on a trend graph?
Also, I suggest you do some reading on the reverse flow PT6A turbine engine. Engine washes via a compressor wash ring result in the wash water passing thru the gas generator and power section.
"....your non-endorsed friend’s matter to the DPP for prosecution:"
But he didn't Creamie, presumably because the case was far too weak! Besides, what is good for the Gander is not always good for the Goose - as you indicated in your claim that Prundle was vindictive towards his staff. At least he was exercising his authority evenly and fairly on both CASA staff and the operators under his supervision.
Have a great weekend - what's left of it!
Whoa there Torres! I know very little about the PT6A. I merely quoted the ATSB report. Are you saying the ATSB was off track? Yes or no, and save the persiflage. And BTW: I’m on your side on this one. I have grave doubts about the contents of a number of recent ATSB reports.
Mick Toller’s matter wasn’t referred to the DPP for consideration for prosecution, because Mick Toller re-organised the investigations and enforcements management responsibilities in CASA so that the decision to refer or not to refer would be made by a more ‘loyal’ staff member. That was after selective questions were asked of Tom Sherman, so that he would give answers that could be used to rubber stamp the decision not to refer. It’s all there in the Hansard, if you care to read it.
I can confirm, and have no hesitation in confirming, that your allegations are as accurate as usual!
Mick Toller’s matter wasn’t referred to the DPP for consideration for prosecution, because Mick Toller re-organised the investigations and enforcements management responsibilities in CASA so that the decision to refer or not to refer would be made by a more ‘loyal’ staff member. That was after selective questions were asked of Tom Sherman, so that he would give answers that could be used to rubber stamp the decision not to refer. It’s all there in the Hansard, if you care to read it.
I can confirm, and have no hesitation in confirming, that your allegations are as accurate as usual!
Creamie. In a word - probably wrong.
There is no doubt reverse flow compressor washes via the igniter boss would have marginally enhanced the benefit of compressor washes, but I know of only one other operator who uses that procedure and generally, PT6 engines don't fail. There is no doubt more frequent Boroscope inspections would have revealed the damaged compressor turbine blade(s) which eventually parted company with the CT Disk.
But the cause of the problem was mineral build up on the CT Blades from using Horn Island tap water, knowing the island was heavily mineralised (there is a gold mine and significant mineral deposits on the island) we didn't "tweak" to the fact the treated water may not be "potable". (I don't recall exact details of the analysis, but do recall the silica content was 18 times the acceptable level.)
We relied on engine computer trend graphs which, strangely, did not detect above average degeneration in the engine performance. Turco power recovery washes did give marginally improved results, but the fact was that plain water washes resulted in mineral build up, rather than demineralisation.
After obtaining the laboratory reports and Pratt's report (their manuals do not define "potable" water), we installed a water purification system and the US$250,000 engine failure problem was solved.
I should have known better - in PNG we used distilled and demineralised bottled water in our 90 odd PT6 engines.
I shudder to think of how many turbine engines in Australia may be being washed with unsuitable water. In many western Queensland towns reliant on bore water for example, the PH is between 7 and 9 with significant amounts of disolved salts - totally unsuitable for engine washing - and yet I have seen turbine engine washes carried out with the same town water.
Pratt's agreed that engine washes before the first start of the day using the first start as a drying run was acceptable (particularly in our environment where the sector times were so short and no outer island ground power) and would result in less cycles and a higher average cycle time. (i.e. higher engine hours per start cycle.) Indeed, morning washes would result in a "cleaner" engine than one washed at night then subject to the night air (even with engine plugs installed), particularly in an engine operating in salt laden air.
Pilots can be "approved" to carry out compressor washes via a compressor wash ring, however because the igniter is lock wired, only a LAME can carry out igniter removal and replacement. I also had some concerns with the prospect of removing and replacing the igniter around 3,000 times in the life of an engine - any damage to the thread and life could get very interesting with a blow torch under the cowling!
The ATSB were correct in the fact the engine failed due to loss of three CT Blades - that part was easy. However, I do not believe they were correct in their findings of all the contributory factors.
But I accept we should have been far smarter than using Horn Island tap water for engine washes!
In all fairness, I have always found my dealings with BASI/ATSB infinitely more professional than my dealings generally with CASA. I remind you of the Coconut Island accident where your mate Fumbles made the ludicrous decision, from thousands of miles away in Canberra, that the accident was caused by “corrosion on the left engine mixture control rod, causing the engine to fail”. BASI immediately released an interim report which totally refuted the absurd Fumbles claim. In fact, the mixture control rod broke from impact forces.
"The left propeller showed little evidence of rotational damage. The propeller had not been feathered. Laboratory examination of a failure of the left engine mixture control rod confirmed that the failure occurred at impact as a result of impact induced stresses. Examination of the engine did not reveal any condition likely to have prevented normal operation."
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=171
Ultimately, both BASI and the Coroner found the cause of the accident was a truck driving across the runway.
There is no doubt reverse flow compressor washes via the igniter boss would have marginally enhanced the benefit of compressor washes, but I know of only one other operator who uses that procedure and generally, PT6 engines don't fail. There is no doubt more frequent Boroscope inspections would have revealed the damaged compressor turbine blade(s) which eventually parted company with the CT Disk.
But the cause of the problem was mineral build up on the CT Blades from using Horn Island tap water, knowing the island was heavily mineralised (there is a gold mine and significant mineral deposits on the island) we didn't "tweak" to the fact the treated water may not be "potable". (I don't recall exact details of the analysis, but do recall the silica content was 18 times the acceptable level.)
We relied on engine computer trend graphs which, strangely, did not detect above average degeneration in the engine performance. Turco power recovery washes did give marginally improved results, but the fact was that plain water washes resulted in mineral build up, rather than demineralisation.
After obtaining the laboratory reports and Pratt's report (their manuals do not define "potable" water), we installed a water purification system and the US$250,000 engine failure problem was solved.
I should have known better - in PNG we used distilled and demineralised bottled water in our 90 odd PT6 engines.
I shudder to think of how many turbine engines in Australia may be being washed with unsuitable water. In many western Queensland towns reliant on bore water for example, the PH is between 7 and 9 with significant amounts of disolved salts - totally unsuitable for engine washing - and yet I have seen turbine engine washes carried out with the same town water.
Pratt's agreed that engine washes before the first start of the day using the first start as a drying run was acceptable (particularly in our environment where the sector times were so short and no outer island ground power) and would result in less cycles and a higher average cycle time. (i.e. higher engine hours per start cycle.) Indeed, morning washes would result in a "cleaner" engine than one washed at night then subject to the night air (even with engine plugs installed), particularly in an engine operating in salt laden air.
Pilots can be "approved" to carry out compressor washes via a compressor wash ring, however because the igniter is lock wired, only a LAME can carry out igniter removal and replacement. I also had some concerns with the prospect of removing and replacing the igniter around 3,000 times in the life of an engine - any damage to the thread and life could get very interesting with a blow torch under the cowling!
The ATSB were correct in the fact the engine failed due to loss of three CT Blades - that part was easy. However, I do not believe they were correct in their findings of all the contributory factors.
But I accept we should have been far smarter than using Horn Island tap water for engine washes!
In all fairness, I have always found my dealings with BASI/ATSB infinitely more professional than my dealings generally with CASA. I remind you of the Coconut Island accident where your mate Fumbles made the ludicrous decision, from thousands of miles away in Canberra, that the accident was caused by “corrosion on the left engine mixture control rod, causing the engine to fail”. BASI immediately released an interim report which totally refuted the absurd Fumbles claim. In fact, the mixture control rod broke from impact forces.
"The left propeller showed little evidence of rotational damage. The propeller had not been feathered. Laboratory examination of a failure of the left engine mixture control rod confirmed that the failure occurred at impact as a result of impact induced stresses. Examination of the engine did not reveal any condition likely to have prevented normal operation."
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=171
Ultimately, both BASI and the Coroner found the cause of the accident was a truck driving across the runway.
Last edited by Torres; 21st Jul 2003 at 11:32.
So the ATSB was off track with URT but on track with XFF?
I agree with you on the URT report, but I gotta say I’m a bit dubious about the XFF report. I don’t quite understand how trucks on runways cause aircraft to fall out of the sky or their engines to fail. So far as I can tell from the report, the aircraft didn’t crash into the truck.
Perhaps the truck was spraying lead oxybromide …
I agree with you on the URT report, but I gotta say I’m a bit dubious about the XFF report. I don’t quite understand how trucks on runways cause aircraft to fall out of the sky or their engines to fail. So far as I can tell from the report, the aircraft didn’t crash into the truck.
Perhaps the truck was spraying lead oxybromide …