Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Yenn

Incident reports

Recommended Posts

I like to go and look at the RAAus website for incident reports. They make interesting reading, comic in some instances.

One on 27th November. A CTSD had  bit of a rough landing, went round and later was seen to have a distinct nose down attitude of the spinner and propeller.

I wonder what happened. Did the crankshaft bend at the front of the engine? Maybe the engine sagged a lot, but wouldn't that also mean that the cowling would sag?

Another on 1st. December two aircraft and one didn't divert enough to create sufficient spacing. Did they touch?

Looking at the reports I sometimes wonder why RAAus doesn't get the info correct, before posting it for us all to see. The other thing that stands out is that there are a lot of incompetent pilots out there. Overstressing nose wheels and just generally not being up to it.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the story or details behind the below entry on page 9 of the online RAAus Accident and defect summaries?

 

Date              Location       State       Aircraft     Model        Engine     Model       Summary

1/7/2019       Kelso             QLD         drifter        dfifter ?

 

Seems quite a long time for no further details to have been added.  There was word that some of the RAAus hierarchy had been up here not long after that date, and was wondering if it may have been related?  Cheers

 

 

 

 

Edited by NotSoSuperSonic
Incorrect spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that report tell us? Absolutely nothing as far as incident reports go. Just a waste of space and it shows how little those who publish the reports know why we need reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yenn said:

What does that report tell us? Absolutely nothing as far as incident reports go. Just a waste of space and it shows how little those who publish the reports know why we need reports.

That is true of nearly all the "reports". Not written in aviation language and never any follow up in the case of engine failures or service difficulties.  If i struggle to learn anything from reading them someone new to the game has no chance. One of the reasons i am not a fan of RAA. 

 

The ATSB reports are very good because they provide sufficient information to understand how and why an accident has occurred. Although they rarely cover numbered aircraft the learning is very valid because light GA and recreational aircraft crash for all the same reasons.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

That is true of nearly all the "reports". Not written in aviation language and never any follow up in the case of engine failures or service difficulties.  If i struggle to learn anything from reading them someone new to the game has no chance. One of the reasons i am not a fan of RAA. 

 

The ATSB reports are very good because they provide sufficient information to understand how and why an accident has occurred. Although they rarely cover numbered aircraft the learning is very valid because light GA and recreational aircraft crash for all the same reasons.  

I think many of them could be vastly improved if, when RAA received the report, someone with good aviation knowledge, asked a few questions, tidied up the terminology, and write a littel summary to make the lesson obvious. For example, at one stage I must have seen about 20 noseovers on landing resulting in broken nose legs to rolling along on the nose wheel, downwind wheel, then including the wingtip, with some completing the flop onto the orcraft's back. It was a rich opportunity to take them all as a group and give the logical reason how this occurs, and the actions needed to avoid it.

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example, I am fairly certain the master caution light has nothing to do with the comm or transponder unless it was indicating alternator failure, can't really tell from this crap.

 

 

28/12/2019 Moorabbin VIC BRM Aero Bristell S-LSA Rotax 912 ULS At PIPS, the student noted the master caution light come on and start flashing. Passing Carrum, the ... 
At PIPS, the student noted the master caution light come on and start flashing. Passing Carrum, the student descended to 1000 approaching Mordialloc pier and started noticing a blank noise. Student conducted radio failure check to confirm whether they actually had a failure or not. Student took it as a radio failure. Transmitting blind, they squawked 7600 then made call joining downwind RWY17R, did not hear any response. Joining base, the student heard static and then the tower respond and the radio came back live again. The student was advised to change transponder back to 3000 which they did and they were given landing clearance and landed safely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

As an example, I am fairly certain the master caution light has nothing to do with the comm or transponder unless it was indicating alternator failure, can't really tell from this crap.

 

 

28/12/2019 Moorabbin VIC BRM Aero Bristell S-LSA Rotax 912 ULS At PIPS, the student noted the master caution light come on and start flashing. Passing Carrum, the ... 
At PIPS, the student noted the master caution light come on and start flashing. Passing Carrum, the student descended to 1000 approaching Mordialloc pier and started noticing a blank noise. Student conducted radio failure check to confirm whether they actually had a failure or not. Student took it as a radio failure. Transmitting blind, they squawked 7600 then made call joining downwind RWY17R, did not hear any response. Joining base, the student heard static and then the tower respond and the radio came back live again. The student was advised to change transponder back to 3000 which they did and they were given landing clearance and landed safely

Tell the tower to piss off or just ignore them I'll change the transponder when I'm on the ground thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes . Probably not an action of any great necessity at that stage.  Dunno that I'd recommend arguing about it in the air though. Just turn it off.  Less electrical load. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occurrence reporting is encouraged by RA-Aus. The original report is in the reporters own words so depending upon their skills in written expression and aviation knowledge some will sound a bit nonsensical or odd. If the incident does require investigation then RA-Aus write a summary of the event and close the case. If no action is required the original sometimes incomprehensible detail is what is left for all to see and ponder over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I started this page for. As I see it we have these incident reports, but they tell us little. As far as RAAus re writing for clarity, it doesn't work. I put in a report about a brake lock up causing a ground loop on landing in the Corby. That resulted in the timber block that the tailwheel spring is attached to cracking. All described in the report. What they printed said that I failed to check the tailwheel attachment during my pre flight. Just an absolute load of rubbish and not worth reading as it had no bearing on what happened.

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wouldn't make you inclined to submit one in the future either would it? They've rewritten it to provide a message they think is helpful. You are unlikely to notice a fault that happens during the flight when doing a PRE flight (unless you re Clairvoyant ). Nev

Edited by facthunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any report is better than none, even a rough assessment of what make and model and was it mechanical/pilot /other causes does help

They shouldn't alter whats submitted.

Previously there was near nothing being submitted and some looong assumptions being drawn on reliability and CASA acted on it. This had massive cost to RAA aircraft owners and had a part in manufacturers closing

Not perfect for sure but better

 

People may be prone to providing unclear detail when insurance will end up being involved

Edited by jetjr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that there's a Corby in every garage, but I think that "the timber block that the tailwheel spring is attached to cracking" counts as a matter for concern to all Corby pilots, and any others whose tailwheel has a similar attachment method. Extending it further, the lesson to be learned is that checking the condition of landing gear components is a good idea during pre-flight.

 

Regarding the clarity and readability of incident reports, I think RAAus, as the body which requested the report should ensure that anything they make available to others clearly sets out what happened, and that the report is readable. A pilot might only submit one report during a lifetime, but the RAAus (I suppose the Technical Officer?) is getting reports on a weekly basis. The receiver should have the experience to be able to frame clarification questions, and contact the submitter. Unless, of course, the policy is "no names, no pack drill", and the submitter cannot be contacted.

Edited by old man emu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/12/2019 at 10:20 AM, Yenn said:

I like to go and look at the RAAus website for incident reports. They make interesting reading, comic in some instances.

One on 27th November. A CTSD had  bit of a rough landing, went round and later was seen to have a distinct nose down attitude of the spinner and propeller.

I wonder what happened. Did the crankshaft bend at the front of the engine? Maybe the engine sagged a lot, but wouldn't that also mean that the cowling would sag?

Another on 1st. December two aircraft and one didn't divert enough to create sufficient spacing. Did they touch?

Looking at the reports I sometimes wonder why RAAus doesn't get the info correct, before posting it for us all to see. The other thing that stands out is that there are a lot of incompetent pilots out there. Overstressing nose wheels and just generally not being up to it.

CTSD attaches the engine cowl to the fuselage, not the engine.  It's not unusual.  Causes of droopy engine - torn engine rubber mounts, bent engine mount structure, even bent firewall.  Especially when you consider that some types use the engine mount as part of the nosewheel structure.  

Not enough spacing - means that the requirements for space between aircraft were violated.  It's clearly not a collision.

It's a reporting system, it by and large reports exactly what was submitted by the reporter.  

If RAA think it warrants more information, they will contact the reporter and you may have RAA observations and actions appended to the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2020 at 4:30 PM, Thruster88 said:

That is true of nearly all the "reports". Not written in aviation language and never any follow up in the case of engine failures or service difficulties.  If i struggle to learn anything from reading them someone new to the game has no chance. One of the reasons i am not a fan of RAA. 

 

The ATSB reports are very good because they provide sufficient information to understand how and why an accident has occurred. Although they rarely cover numbered aircraft the learning is very valid because light GA and recreational aircraft crash for all the same reasons.  

I've had RAA follow up on *partial* engine failures and on SDR.   In the VH world, engine failures are SDR, and most SDR are *not* followed up.  

Also, CASA may paraphrase your SDR to say something completely different to what you said, confusing cause with effect, for instance.  I'd rather see the report as submitted in both cases, but by all means CASA or whoever should editorialise on what was submitted.  I have had to get CASA to change their version of one of my SDR a few times, and they are pretty good about it.

 

So what you see in CASA SDR is generally their take on it (and often improved), not what was submitted, and what was submitted in a CASA SDR was mostly written by a professional in the first place.   In the RAA system, you get to see the garbage that they get sent - you shouldn't blame them for it.  It's a start, it's a work in progress, but it is a lot better than nothing.  But it does rely on members bucking up their game.

 

The other thing about CASA SDR, most of them are submitted with a complete analysis of what happened and what rectifying action is needed.  What CASA have to deal with is a completely different thing to what RAA are dealing with.

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yenn said:

This is what I started this page for. As I see it we have these incident reports, but they tell us little. As far as RAAus re writing for clarity, it doesn't work. I put in a report about a brake lock up causing a ground loop on landing in the Corby. That resulted in the timber block that the tailwheel spring is attached to cracking. All described in the report. What they printed said that I failed to check the tailwheel attachment during my pre flight. Just an absolute load of rubbish and not worth reading as it had no bearing on what happened.

Hmm...  and that doesn't happen with CASA SDR?  Just as with the CASA, if the report is inaccurate, take it up with RAA - politely.   Everyone makes mistakes.  And if there is a systematic clerical issue happening, you need to keep at it, escalate your polite comments to a higher level in the organisation.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...