CASA in the news Important Urgent - Insight on SBS on Thursday night
The ATSB correctly identified the engine failure (in VH-URT) was caused by one (or up to three) failed CT blade(s). They correctly identified that the water wash was inefficient. I had the water laboratory tested and sought Pratt's opinion on the laboratory results. The Horn Island water supply failed to meet the required standard for engine washes (contaminated by heavy metals and other solids, significantly exceeded the engine manufacturer's standard).
"1 The pilot (of VH-XFF) initiated a go-around from final approach because of a vehicle on the airstrip.
2 The left propeller showed little evidence of rotation damage. The reason for a possible loss of left engine power could not be determined.
3 For reasons that could not be established, the pilot lost control of the aircraft at a low height."
It would appear (from the Coroner's Inquiry) that a Toyota truck crossed the runway threshold (from right to left) as the aircraft was on short finals, possibly only meters in front of the landing aircraft. Due to a copse of trees on the right (north-eastern) side of the strip, the vehicle would not have been visible to the pilot until in entered the runway.
VH-XFF was a 260 HP Islander, with normally aspirated Lycoming O-540 engines.
"The pre-impact position of the carburettor heat controls for both engines could not be positively determined. It is possible for ice to have formed in one carburettor and not the other. If ice was present in the left engine carburettor during the approach, it was unlikely to have been evident to the pilot because the engine was probably operating at low power. Such a condition could have caused the engine to fail to respond at the commencement of the go-around."
It would appear the left engine failed to accelerate, possibly due to carby icing (or carby flooding?), which could not be subsequently identified by investigators.
The subsequent asymmetric performance in an emergency pull up and go around, at a speed of probably less than 40 knots, appears to have induced a stall and yaw to the left (into the "dead" engine).
"Further, no evidence was found of any aircraft unserviceability being reported and/or recorded between 2 January and the accident flight." (Despite CASA allegations........!)
I was at the scene of both incidents (Coconut and Badu Islands) within 30 to 40 minutes and did everything in my power to facilitate both investigations by BASI. I am intimately aware of what precisely occurred in both incidents. Perhaps now you realise why I am so passionate both about aviation safety, the ludicrous nature of comments and allegations by Muddles and Fumbles, having the AOC restored and obtaining the first remote area RPT AOC in the Torres Strait - within a month of the AOC suspension being lifted.
"As a result of this occurrence, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (formerly BASI) is investigating a possible safety deficiency 19990038 that relates to the security of airfields in the Torres Strait against public access."
To my knowledge, CASA has taken no action on that recommendation and vehicles still, regularly, drive along and across island air strips.
I think that says it all?
"1 The pilot (of VH-XFF) initiated a go-around from final approach because of a vehicle on the airstrip.
2 The left propeller showed little evidence of rotation damage. The reason for a possible loss of left engine power could not be determined.
3 For reasons that could not be established, the pilot lost control of the aircraft at a low height."
It would appear (from the Coroner's Inquiry) that a Toyota truck crossed the runway threshold (from right to left) as the aircraft was on short finals, possibly only meters in front of the landing aircraft. Due to a copse of trees on the right (north-eastern) side of the strip, the vehicle would not have been visible to the pilot until in entered the runway.
VH-XFF was a 260 HP Islander, with normally aspirated Lycoming O-540 engines.
"The pre-impact position of the carburettor heat controls for both engines could not be positively determined. It is possible for ice to have formed in one carburettor and not the other. If ice was present in the left engine carburettor during the approach, it was unlikely to have been evident to the pilot because the engine was probably operating at low power. Such a condition could have caused the engine to fail to respond at the commencement of the go-around."
It would appear the left engine failed to accelerate, possibly due to carby icing (or carby flooding?), which could not be subsequently identified by investigators.
The subsequent asymmetric performance in an emergency pull up and go around, at a speed of probably less than 40 knots, appears to have induced a stall and yaw to the left (into the "dead" engine).
"Further, no evidence was found of any aircraft unserviceability being reported and/or recorded between 2 January and the accident flight." (Despite CASA allegations........!)
I was at the scene of both incidents (Coconut and Badu Islands) within 30 to 40 minutes and did everything in my power to facilitate both investigations by BASI. I am intimately aware of what precisely occurred in both incidents. Perhaps now you realise why I am so passionate both about aviation safety, the ludicrous nature of comments and allegations by Muddles and Fumbles, having the AOC restored and obtaining the first remote area RPT AOC in the Torres Strait - within a month of the AOC suspension being lifted.
"As a result of this occurrence, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (formerly BASI) is investigating a possible safety deficiency 19990038 that relates to the security of airfields in the Torres Strait against public access."
To my knowledge, CASA has taken no action on that recommendation and vehicles still, regularly, drive along and across island air strips.
I think that says it all?
Last edited by Torres; 22nd Jul 2003 at 10:29.
1 I highlighted that section of the BASI Report for you, Creamie.
2 From survivor reports to BASI and the Coroner's Court.
3 I have no idea where, nor do I have the time, to go research the Coroner's Court (Thursday Island) findings. I am sure you will know where to find it.
2 From survivor reports to BASI and the Coroner's Court.
3 I have no idea where, nor do I have the time, to go research the Coroner's Court (Thursday Island) findings. I am sure you will know where to find it.
Last edited by Torres; 22nd Jul 2003 at 11:59.
The only orifice that Mr Anderson would strain in my direction is not an ear, believe me.
The issue I referred to above has been on the public record for quite a long time. It's not by any means the worst of what's on the public record about Mr Toller's performance in CASA, for those who bother to read it.
Mr Toller wasn't sacked. He wanted to go, he asked for a very large bag of money to go quietly and to stay quiet, and Mr Anderson agreed to pay it because Mr Anderson needs Mr Toller to stay quiet.
One can expect Mr Kym Bills of the ATSB also to get a very large bag of money when he decides he wants to go. Or perhaps he'll get a Secretary's job.
It's called real politik.
The issue I referred to above has been on the public record for quite a long time. It's not by any means the worst of what's on the public record about Mr Toller's performance in CASA, for those who bother to read it.
Mr Toller wasn't sacked. He wanted to go, he asked for a very large bag of money to go quietly and to stay quiet, and Mr Anderson agreed to pay it because Mr Anderson needs Mr Toller to stay quiet.
One can expect Mr Kym Bills of the ATSB also to get a very large bag of money when he decides he wants to go. Or perhaps he'll get a Secretary's job.
It's called real politik.
Creamie, frankly I found Mick Toller quite a reasonable guy, however I don't think his airline pilot background necessarily equipped him for a regulatory administrator's task. I could also make similar comments about Leroy Keith, although I accept Leroy had an administrative background.
In both cases, they were up against "the establishment" - CASA's less than competent - and often vindictive - upper management.
However, what for the future? Will the Minister adopt a transparent, open method of recruiting and appointing a replacement, or will the "Minister's boy" get the job on the quiet? Will it be an aviation professional or an administrator?
The money around Canberra at present is on either Bruce Byron or the present Acting Director, Bruce Gemmell.
In both cases, they were up against "the establishment" - CASA's less than competent - and often vindictive - upper management.
However, what for the future? Will the Minister adopt a transparent, open method of recruiting and appointing a replacement, or will the "Minister's boy" get the job on the quiet? Will it be an aviation professional or an administrator?
The money around Canberra at present is on either Bruce Byron or the present Acting Director, Bruce Gemmell.
Last edited by Torres; 23rd Jul 2003 at 09:37.
Aviation Professional or Administrator
Torres
Let us hope that it is an Administrative and Regulatory Professional!
I think these forums prove out the depth of knowledge aviators have about administrative matters.
Being able to fly a plane really well does not make you good at runing a National Regulatory body.
Let us hope that it is an Administrative and Regulatory Professional!
I think these forums prove out the depth of knowledge aviators have about administrative matters.
Being able to fly a plane really well does not make you good at runing a National Regulatory body.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being able to fly a plane really well does not make you good at runing sic a National Regulatory body.
Freudian spelling perhaps?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lead balloon says
"I think these forums prove out the depth of knowledge aviators have about administrative matters".
I would like to add that the regulators/administrators (piliak et al) have demonstrated how out of their depth they are in operational matters.
Being compliant doesn't necessarily mean it is safe
ding
"I think these forums prove out the depth of knowledge aviators have about administrative matters".
I would like to add that the regulators/administrators (piliak et al) have demonstrated how out of their depth they are in operational matters.
Being compliant doesn't necessarily mean it is safe
ding
Spell Checker
culd the womera upgrad the programme to incloode a spel chekker!
I marvel at the way in which people get sucked in by these kinds of announcements.
Some air modulated on the way through John Anderson’s vocal chords does not make it so.
I am reminded of Bill Pike’s infamous ‘regulatory peace for our time’ post of 21 November 2002, at the conclusion of which he (Bill) declared:
The word “beholden” was in red. I kid you not. [I was kidding on the red bit, but the rest is gospel See:http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=73239
At the time, I incurred Bill’s wrath by pointing out (grovellingly of course) that in order to bring about what seemed to him to be the regulatory equivalent of nirvana, the law had to be changed, and that the law is not changed by press release or ministerial statement.
The first golden rays of light were due to dawn on Bill’s new suspension regime on 1 July 2003. It’s now 22 July 2003 and not one syllable of the suspension legislation has changed.
CASA’s being “restructured”, is it? Really? I am aware of a bill gathering dust, which bill, if it becomes law, will have the effect of removing the CASA board. So what?
The very reason CASA was set up as a separate statutory authority was to extricate it from day to day control and interference by the minister and inconsistent mandates. In the wake of the Seaview/Monarch/Dick Smith disasters, a quaint view arose that safety regulation should be insulated so far as possible from political interference and sectional interests.
John Anderson’s not stupid enough to claim or assume direct responsibility for air safety regulation. My bet is that he will appoint what Torres calls a “minister’s boy” to replace Mr Toller. Someone who’s smart enough to know what the minister does and does not want to know, and when he does and does not want to know it. Byron’s got too much integrity to play that game. My money’s on the Max Moore-Wilton end of the spectrum.
If you think that's good news for aviation safety regulation, I disagree.
Some air modulated on the way through John Anderson’s vocal chords does not make it so.
I am reminded of Bill Pike’s infamous ‘regulatory peace for our time’ post of 21 November 2002, at the conclusion of which he (Bill) declared:
Every pilot, professional or private or student, every AOC or Certificate of Approval Holder, is now beholden to AOPA.
At the time, I incurred Bill’s wrath by pointing out (grovellingly of course) that in order to bring about what seemed to him to be the regulatory equivalent of nirvana, the law had to be changed, and that the law is not changed by press release or ministerial statement.
The first golden rays of light were due to dawn on Bill’s new suspension regime on 1 July 2003. It’s now 22 July 2003 and not one syllable of the suspension legislation has changed.
CASA’s being “restructured”, is it? Really? I am aware of a bill gathering dust, which bill, if it becomes law, will have the effect of removing the CASA board. So what?
The very reason CASA was set up as a separate statutory authority was to extricate it from day to day control and interference by the minister and inconsistent mandates. In the wake of the Seaview/Monarch/Dick Smith disasters, a quaint view arose that safety regulation should be insulated so far as possible from political interference and sectional interests.
John Anderson’s not stupid enough to claim or assume direct responsibility for air safety regulation. My bet is that he will appoint what Torres calls a “minister’s boy” to replace Mr Toller. Someone who’s smart enough to know what the minister does and does not want to know, and when he does and does not want to know it. Byron’s got too much integrity to play that game. My money’s on the Max Moore-Wilton end of the spectrum.
If you think that's good news for aviation safety regulation, I disagree.
Last edited by Creampuff; 23rd Jul 2003 at 19:02.
Creamie: Here's the line that worries me:
"Mr Anderson said he hoped to announce a replacement by early September at the latest, and was already aware of some potential candidates."
That says to me we won't see an open and accountable public recruitment and appointment process and indeed, there is some indication the Minister has someone in mind already.
"Mr Anderson said he hoped to announce a replacement by early September at the latest, and was already aware of some potential candidates."
That says to me we won't see an open and accountable public recruitment and appointment process and indeed, there is some indication the Minister has someone in mind already.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coroner Clears Whyalla Pilot
Posted: Thur, 24 Jul 2003 13:51 ACST - ABC News
The South Australian coroner has found that engine failure and not pilot error was the cause of the Whyalla Airlines crash that killed eight people three years ago.
The coroner today handed down the findings of an inquest and they have contradicted the results of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation.
The coroner found that tragically, both engines failed during the flight, just minutes out of Whyalla.
The first to go was the right engine, with a piston failure most likely caused by a lean fuel mixture, but one that was prescribed by the plane's operating manual.
Although pilot Ben Mackiewicz then compensated for the power loss by slightly increasing the revs on the left engine, he did not overboost it.
But by coincidence it was shortly after that this engine failed, the result of a previously undetected flaw in manufacture.
Unlike the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report the coroner exonerated the pilot and stressed he did not overboost either engine.
The South Australian coroner has found that engine failure and not pilot error was the cause of the Whyalla Airlines crash that killed eight people three years ago.
The coroner today handed down the findings of an inquest and they have contradicted the results of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation.
The coroner found that tragically, both engines failed during the flight, just minutes out of Whyalla.
The first to go was the right engine, with a piston failure most likely caused by a lean fuel mixture, but one that was prescribed by the plane's operating manual.
Although pilot Ben Mackiewicz then compensated for the power loss by slightly increasing the revs on the left engine, he did not overboost it.
But by coincidence it was shortly after that this engine failed, the result of a previously undetected flaw in manufacture.
Unlike the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report the coroner exonerated the pilot and stressed he did not overboost either engine.
Last edited by ACK; 24th Jul 2003 at 13:01.