Virgin Australia flew 13 passenger flights in broken turbo-prop

[Radi K]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...en-turbo-prop/

Where on earth is CASA as well as Virgin Australia and the Minister for Aviation in relation to the shocking update by the ATSB in the case of a damaged 68 passenger ATR72 turbo-prop that was allowed to fly 13 times in scheduled service after a turbulence event on a Sydney-Canberra flight in February?

The core elements of the ATSB report show that Virgin Australia’s engineering contractor and the airline failed to identify and understand serious damage done to this aircraft in the turbulence event.

The aircraft was then allowed to carry passengers for thirteen sectors in that state before an in-flight crisis five days later approaching Albury from Sydney where it was grounded after landing, and remains to those day, pending repairs if indeed it can be repaired.

These are scandalous disclosures. No one in the general flying public in this country expects that a contract maintenance organisation could be so bad at its job that it failed to understand and identify the grave safety of flight issues apparent on the Virgin turbo-prop on 20 February.

It is after all, what the maintenance provider is paid by Virgin to do, rather than scratch their heads and release the aircraft back into service.

It’s Virgin’s inescapable legal obligation to ensure that all aircraft are safe before flying. It didn’t ensure the safety of these 13 flights. It’s CASA’s role to enforce and maintain a safe level of oversight on airline operations and ensure that those who carry out aircraft maintenance are competent and effective.

It’s the Minister’s responsibility, particularly as the leader of the Nationals, to make sure that rural and regional air services, including those that fly him and his colleagues to and from Canberra, are safe. It’s called Ministerial responsibility.

How on earth did this situation arise with this aircraft, and what steps have been taken to ensure that whoever screwed up so badly, within Virgin, and within the contractor, never get to imperil the safety of flight in this country in this manner again?

This may seem harsh. But flight safety standards are by necessity harsh. The harsh reality is that 13 passenger loads were exposed to a broken aircraft, and that is intolerable. Read the ATSB document linked to above very carefully, as it contains inferences and disclosures that are very disturbing.

A statement will be issued by Virgin Australia today and will be added to this report as soon as possible, and further reports on this matter will of course be posted as to future developments.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...-2014-032.aspx

[Brad Myer]

Could you imagine the media frenzy if this was QF….

[Daniel M]

Oh spare me, for crying out loud

[Garry Emanuel]

Sorry, I am with Brad.

I had an experience several years ago (at the height of the Qantas/ALAEA "differnce of opinion"). As we touched down in Melbourne, a trim panel detached from the ceiling and fell to the floor.

The trim was about 1.5 to 2.4 metres in length and was relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things. No one was injured, none of the crew were incapacitated, the aircraft didn't plummet hundreds of metres and surprisingly, we landed safely, and all lived happily ever after ! ! !

That was until the matter was brought to the attention of our media stalwarts - those doyens of truthful and informed reporting. The report I saw inferred a major catastrophe and Qantas management negligence for allowing such a dangerous and potentially serious issue to occur.

Any half-baked piece of banana bread could have seen that a plastic strip which was previously taped in place did not play any part in aircraft operation (more cosmetic) and at no stage was anyone is danger.

The difference in these cases:-

• one (QF) is hung, drawn and quartered for an insignificant matter (but, one that probably should not have happened)

versus

• another (VA) where someone should be hung, drawn and quartered for even contemplating allowing passengers to board a potentially unsafe aircraft

I bet the latter doesn't rate so much as an honourable mention in the mainstream press (like The Age, SMH, AFR or Australian) - most likely a non-descript item in "The Border Mail" - perhaps page 19, bottom-right corner - where very few people look !

Time for some on this forum to own up to having a very narrow view of what gets reported and recognise that there are media sellers (QF, Telstra, CBA et al) that the media want to jump on regardless of what they do because they're easy targets and perhaps don't pay up and there are dwellers (VA in particular) that stand back, cherry-pick all they like, then disappear when the going gets tough, leaving trail of flotsam behind them but presumably paying their dues.

[Mick F]

What's not to say that the report above is over exaggerated?

I'm sure the engineer who signed it out didn't do it simply so he didn't disturb Virgin's schedule.

Everyone makes mistakes every now and then. The main thing is someone picked it up.

If I had a dollar for every time I've flown an aircraft that shouldn't have been signed out.....

Mick

[Erik H. Bakke]

Originally Posted by Mick F

If I had a dollar for every time I've flown an aircraft that shouldn't have been signed out.....

Assuming you're a pilot, why did you fly the aircraft if it shouldn't have been signed out?
Would these be for things that could not be picked up until the aircraft was already in flight?

[Mick F]

Would these be for things that could not be picked up until the aircraft was already in flight?

Correct

[Radi K]

Originally Posted by Mick F

What's not to say that the report above is over exaggerated?

With all due respect; I know you have very extensive flying experience, but are you suggesting the blog post or the actual ATSB report is over exaggerated?

The facts in the ATSB report are clear; a significant incident occurred; one which could have legitimately resulted in significant loss of life, if the cracks were not picked up when they were. Like most aviation incidents/accidents, multiple redundancies in aviation is what saved the day here. Yes the pilots made an error; yes the engineers should have done better and completed a proper examination and yes Virgin and ultimately CASA should have had ensured oversight of all of the above. Guess we will see more when the full report comes out.

For what it's worth; the plane is still packed away in the hanger in ABX.

[Mick F]

I'm not suggesting the ATSB report is over exaggerated. It seems quite factual from the extract that I read.

However is Ben Sandilands an engineer?

Ok, something was missed. Sh*t happens. Like I said, the engineers wouldn't have gone out of their way to sign out an aircraft that shouldn't have flown.

I'm failing to see how Virgin and CASA were supposed to oversee any more of this. They employ/contract licensed engineers. The engineers perform the job, they sign it out under their license. If Virgin and CASA were to inspect every little task that a licensed engineer performed, it'd take a month for an aircraft to be released to service.

I'm sure Virgin and CASA will now be asking questions of said organisation, however I can just about guarantee you that the response will simply be something along the lines of "We have taken steps to ensure the quality control in this area is increased".

Maybe the question that should be asked, is why were the crew inputing control inputs at the same time without crew co-ordination?

Mick

[Mark Grima]

http://m.canberratimes.com.au/busine...612-39zxx.html

It's in the media now.

Cheers

M