Garfly

Juan Browne has just posted his analysis:

Everyone, especially him, I suppose, would agree; he cut it fine. The interesting take-away, for me, is that he pulled off the difficult trick of an 'easy' forced landing.

True, but I get the feeling that he well knew that. He seemed to be well aware (even reminded himself out-loud) that even though he had the field made, maybe ten miles out, well into his (20 minute?) glide - prop stopped - from 9000' he could still f#%* the whole thing up at the last minute, the last seconds, even. But crucially, he kept his cool, apparently circling the landing field - keeping it in sight - until he sensed that it was the right moment to set up for a 'normal' downwind for a 'normal' landing. He pulled it off by his calm disciplined thinking, where many others have failed, even after they seemed to have it in the bag.

This YouTube Channel Aviation Squared has lots of short vids on the ups and downs of an aircraft mechanic's daily work life. Filmed exclusively as point-of-view, they're all as good for a laugh as they are for an education in the finer points of plane fixing. Geez, gaffer tape just don't get no respect these days ...

I'd agree with that. However, last week's extraordinary intervention by ASIO chief Mike Burgess reminds us that the boot is often on the other foot; where the mandarins are our only defence against the perfidy of pollies. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/10/peter-dutton-has-plumbed-new-and-dangerous-depths-by-suggesting-china-is-backing-labor "Did the defence minister not hear the Asio boss warn that stoking community division has ‘the same corrosive impact on our democracy as foreign interference itself’?" https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/politicising-issues-of-national-security-not-helpful-asio-boss-says/vu8xehs1l "The politicisation of national security issues has been labelled as "not helpful" by the head of Australia's spy agency. In an interview on the ABC's 7.30 program, ASIO director-general Mike Burgess also said both sides of politics had been targeted by foreign interference. The comments come after Prime Minister Scott Morrison labelled Labor deputy leader Richard Marles a "Manchurian candidate" during question time on Wednesday. Mr Morrison was forced to withdraw the comment made during another government attack on Labor as it continues to try to draw a link between China's communist regime and the ALP. Defence Minister Peter Dutton has previously called Opposition leader Anthony Albanese as China's "preferred candidate" in the upcoming federal election." https://www.themandarin.com.au/181670-asio-boss-labels-politiciation-of-security-not-helpful/

They don't make films - or hair helmets - like that any more (something to be thankful for). Too bad they abandoned the Aerobat, though, that would still be modern.

Similar in the simulator:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/feb/22/downfall-the-case-against-boeing-netflix-documentary-737-max

Meanwhile, Superman's worst nightmare:

These three videos tell a good story; lessons about engine maintenance and handling an engine failure at take-off. I recommend cutting to the chase - around 05:00 - on this first one. The background is discussed better in the follow up films. (Clicking through to watch on YouTube itself makes the - equally interesting - Comments section available.) Here the guy talks for 20 mins (and reasonably succinctly ;- ) about the engine-shop issues he had preceding the incident and about his handling of the crisis. The first 9 minutes of this third one is only for those interested in a forensic analysis of his EMS read-out. From around 09:00 onwards there's the plain english story of what happened to the engine.

Okay, Turbs, tally them up ... we'd hate to miss the trees for the forest ;- )

Yes, well, a certain cynicism towards the machinery of government is definitely called for. But, "Yes, Minister" like all good comedy, also has its serious side. It'd be too bad if it had the effect of blunting our sense of indignation in the face of bureaucratic malpractice. Many people are still capable of righteous anger when they hear about agencies bullying individuals unjustly (in this case fellow pilots) even if they don't know them. And some politicians get genuinely annoyed, too, when they see its effects, up close and personal. It's not that CASA is a standout case in human history. All organisations with power to punish individuals need to guard against the (natural?) tendency towards systemic cruelty and corruption. History has heaps of warnings: from the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome to the Stasi of the GDR - and onwards to the present NSW police (back in the news). And since no organisation is really capable of policing itself, we the people and our reps, and our (serious) media, need to keep an eye on them like hawks. So I'm not totally cynical about the Senate Committee. At least they're trying to hold the line, even if they appear powerless to effect real and lasting change. Statistics can be real tricky. To fairly compare the FAA with CASA doesn't Airservices Australia need to be taken into account? That means 3,500 more to add to your 859, no? And by my maths that puts Australia at 16.7 per 100,000; better than the US's 13.6, and without a big manufacturing industry to regulate (or not ;- )

True ... this bit from the (US) FLYING article echoes some of the dynamics playing out in the Australian Senate Committee video (original post). "In a statement, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, thanked Dickson for his service, noting the two did not “see eye to eye.” Source: https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-administrator-steve-dickson-resigns-cites-family-pressures/

Apart from thinking fire-resistance, the big issue with dressing for our cramped and breezy cockpits is that we often take-off in very hot places and climb to very cold ones. It's no problem for ordinary travellers who just need to bring along a jacket or sweater. But it's virtually impossible to (safely) put on and take-off extra layers while we're flying. It'd be nice to have a kind of vest made with a mesh front and clips (or velcro) on the shoulders and sides for a warm front section to be attached. (It might even go over your harness, if necessary). Then you'd only need to roll down the sleeves on your stout cotton shirt to be nice and cosy. ;- )

There's a cap for that:

Fair enough. But I get the feeling that if we saw all relevant reports and letters that've passed over the desk of Senator Susan McDonald, I doubt we'd sleep so soundly. She doesn't seem like the type who'd get that furious over something-nothing. And in her view she's only seeing the tip of the iceberg due fear of intimidation by 'the authorities'. The fact that that kind of thing is going on in government is totally unacceptable.

Well it's very good to know that if we ever find ourselves needing to bend the regs to save a life then it's no good declaring your mission a 'mercy flight' anymore. You just need to go straight to "Mayday" ... assuming you can get someone to hear you. And we need to know that if things do go pear-shaped the senators are not going to be able to help much when those ex-cops come calling.

Thanks for that information, Kieran. How else are pilots to know? Too bad you couldn't have been there to advise the senators. That would have been a zinger of a follow-up question. Presumably (one hopes!) Pip Spence PSM was as clueless as the rest of us about the change. (Likewise, the crew of departmental staff with her?!) As a Public Service Medal holder, the least she should do is to correct the record. Talking of CASA duplicitousness and Mercy Flights, this is a Canberra Times story from last year where, once again, officials insisting on placing the regulatory cart before the horse of reality proved fatal for a father trying to save his drowning child. So who is to blame? Who takes the rap? Senators? Sir Humphrey Appleby? https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7334149/mercy-flight-row-builds-after-south-coast-tragedy/

Ideally, we should all be supporting CASA. We can easily believe CEO Pip Spence about the many people in the organisation who are totally dedicated to doing their best for all stakeholders in Australian aviation. And we can be pleased - grateful, even - for all the good things achieved by them. In fact, committee Chair, Senator Susan McDonald, despite her fury with CASA, told the CEO "I respect you enormously ... you're doing a terrific job" but she went on to say that Spence had "taken on a very difficult role" in trying to fix the many "bad things" the committee was hearing about CASA, "cultural things". She went on to talk about that particular aviation business that had been "incredibly poorly treated, under the name of regulation and safety by bureaucrats in Canberra who just don't care". That treatment came down to gestapo like enforcement measures including the use of ex-cops to intimidate individuals connected to the operator concerned. That's the exact same culture that, a decade ago, had them putting all the blame for the Pel-Air accident onto the pilot and away from their own systemic faults. That's why I say not much has changed, despite the best efforts of journalists and that same committee over many years. That's one side of the 'bad culture'. The other side is what Independent Senator Rex Patrick, in the video, calls "legal fettering by CASA" as a result of their inability to see "the whole picture [being] focussed solely on 'my set of rules' " Or as Senator McDonald puts it to them, "these safety provisions have become molasses around your feet". Yes, it is somewhat heartening to see that the Senate Committee is still banging away at it (notwithstanding some weird questions, especially from Senator Roberts) but it's also hard to see a way forward against the entrenched bad angels of bureaucracy when they never really face the consequences of their unjust actions.

https://vfrg.casa.gov.au/emergency-procedures/mercy-flights/ Mercy flight declaration AIP ENR 1.1 When an urgent medical, flood or fire relief or evacuation flight is proposed in order to retrieve a person from grave and imminent danger and failure to do so is likely to result in loss of life or serious or permanent disability and the flight will involve irregular operations, a mercy flight must be declared. A mercy flight must only be declared by the pilot in command and the factors/risks that the pilot in command must consider in the declaration, commencement and continuation of the flight are detailed in AIP ENR 1.1. This is still up on the CASA website. Can you give more details about this provision being removed, Keiran?

The Senate committee concluded that CASA were trying to get ATSB to cover up their own systemic incompetence which was a contributing factor to the original accident. But for whatever reason you want to let them off the hook. Fine. But that's not how progress is made.

The original 4 Corners was aired in Sep 2012. https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/crash-landing/4242482 But why obsess about legal-technical issues regarding liability and monetary compensation? We're talking about CASA/ATSB here and about bad governance and bureaucratic corruption, as was was Four Corners and Nick Xenophon. From Aviation Safety Network https://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/06/02/atsb-and-casa-criticised-by-australian-senate-committee/ An Australian Senate Committee inquiry criticised the Australian aviation regulator CASA as well as Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) on their role in a 2009 accident investigation. The Senate Committee on Aviation accident investigations was initiated in the wake of an accident involving the ditching of a medical evacuation IAI Westwind jet in November 2009. The airplane was en route from Apia, Samoa to Norfolk Island in the Pacific Ocean. Headwind was greater than expected and the weather conditions at Norfolk Island deteriorated. The crew had increasing concerns about their fuel reserves but did not divert to an alternate airport. Following four missed approaches to Norfolk Airport in poor weather, the pilot ditched the plane close to the shore. All six on board were rescued. ATSB concluded that the pilot of the accident flight amongst others “did not plan the flight in accordance with the existing regulatory and operator requirements”. An episode of the Australian current affairs tv programme Four Corners indicated that there were inconsistencies between the ATSB investigation report and a Special Audit from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority into the operator of the medevac jet. In September 2012, Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, successfully called for the establishment of a Senate inquiry. The committee’s objective was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) investigations in the interests of the travelling public. Many submitters and witnesses in the inquiry asserted that the ATSB’s report was not balanced and included scant coverage of contributing systemic factors such as organisational and regulatory issues, human factors and survivability aspects. The Committee stated that CASA failed to provide the ATSB with critical audit documents regarding the operator of the airplane. These documents “demonstrated CASA’s failure to properly oversee the Pel-Air operations,” according to the Committee. Parts of the ATSB investigation process lacked transparency, objectivity and due process. The committee finds that the ATSB’s subjective investigative processes were driven in part by ministerial guidance prioritising high capacity public transport operations over other types of aviation transport. The inquiry has made 26 recommendations, including redrafting the information sharing agreement between CASA and the ATSB, and re-opening the Pel Air inquiry.

turboplanner (above) said: "Just looking at the Four Corners report: This is not about CASA. It's also not really about ATSB ...." Well it turned out to be very much about CASA and its little mate, the ATSB. The controversy led to the Senate Report "Aviation accident investigations" of May 2013 (It showed what can happen when good journalism and good governance work together.) From Chapter 4 • page 48: "Did CASA and the ATSB collude? 4.63 Documentation made available to the committee raises questions about the level of influence CASA may have had during the ATSB investigation. It is clear that the ATSB Chief Commissioner, Mr Martin Dolan, knew that CASA did not support a broad systems approach to the inquiry despite earlier indications to the contrary from Mr John McCormick, head of CASA. Furthermore, early in the investigation there appears to have been cross checking of the CASA investigation report with the ATSB draft to ensure they were consistent. In addition, at least one high level meeting was supposed to have occurred between the two agencies on the safety issue but was not minuted. The committee is also aware that both the ATSB's General Manager, Mr Ian Sangston, and Chief Commissioner Dolan personally reviewed the report draft. ATSB documents provided to the committee indicate that an evidence table was reworked in order to reflect Mr Sangston's final assessments that the identified safety matters were 'minor safety issues'. " From the Executive Summary • page xx "The committee also focuses on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the interaction between the ATSB and CASA. The committee notes that a systemic approach to the investigation was initially pursued, but that systemic issues were scoped out of the investigation early in the process. This led the committee to ask whether CASA exerted undue influence on the ATSB process. What is clear is that CASA's failure to provide the ATSB with critical documents, including the Chambers Report and CASA’s Special Audit of Pel-Air, which both demonstrated CASA’s failure to properly oversee the Pel-Air operations, contravened the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in place between the two agencies and may have breached the terms of the Transport Safety Investigations Act 2003 (Chapter 7). The committee takes a dim view of CASA's actions in this regard. The survival of all six people on board VH-NGA means that a lot went right—this should result in lessons for the wider industry, particularly operators flying to remote locations. At the same time, many things could have worked better, and industry should also learn from these. Many submitters and witnesses asserted that the ATSB's report is not balanced and includes scant coverage of contributing systemic factors such as organisational and regulatory issues, human factors and survivability aspects. Given the ATSB's central role in improving aviation safety by communicating lessons learned from aviation accidents, the committee is surprised by the agency's near exclusive focus on the actions of the pilot and lack of analysis or detail of factors that would assist the wider aviation industry. The committee notes warnings that the omission or downgrading of important safety information has the potential to adversely affect aviation safety. The committee was understandably troubled by allegations that agencies whose role it is to protect and enhance aviation safety were acting in ways which could compromise that safety. It therefore resolved to take all appropriate action to investigate these allegations in order to assure itself, the industry and the travelling public that processes currently in place in CASA and the ATSB are working effectively." // From the List of Recommendations: "Recommendation 11 6.52 The committee recommends that CASA processes in relation to matters highlighted by this investigation be reviewed. This could involve an evaluation benchmarked against a credible peer (such as FAA or CAA) of regulation and audits with respect to: non-RPT passenger carrying operations; approach to audits; and training and standardisation of FOI across regional offices." "Recommendation 14 7.15 The committee recommends that the ATSB-CASA Memorandum of Understanding be re-drafted to remove any ambiguity in relation to information that should be shared between the agencies in relation to aviation accident investigations, to require CASA to: • advise the ATSB of the initiation of any action, audit or review as a result of an accident which the ATSB is investigating. • provide the ATSB with the relevant review report as soon as it is available."