|
|
Post by fyl on Feb 23, 2012 11:26:56 GMT 12
From Stuff today... www.stuff.co.nz/national/6467998/Carterton-tragedy-Balloon-airworthyness-questionedStill lots of 'maybes' and 'mights' in the report....would be very surprised if someone like Lance wouldn't have had the balloon 'up to spec'!! ************************************************************** The balloon which crashed in Carterton killing 11 people may not have been airworthy, investigators have found. The Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) has released preliminary findings showing several maintenance requirements were not followed by those operating the balloon, including procedures for inspecting the balloon's burners and fuel system, and a "grab test" to test the strength of the balloon material. As a result TAIC has recommend that Civil Aviation make an urgent check of New Zealand's 74 hot air balloons to test for airworthiness. TAIC chief commissioner John Marshall QC said it was "too early to say whether maintenance issues actually contributed to the accident, however evidence gathered by our investigators suggests the balloon's maintenance may not have complied with civil aviation rules. "Where an aircraft is not maintained in accordance with those rules then it would not meet the standard for 'airworthy condition"'. The evidence did not relate to examination of the balloon wreckage, he said. "Because of concern that these issues might go wider than the balloon lost with 11 lives in January, [TAIC] last Wednesday issued an urgent safety recommendation which we are making public today after having given the director the opportunity to consider it and put in place his response," Marshall said. All 11 people on board the balloon, piloted by Lance Hopping, were killed on January 7 when it caught fire and plummeted into a field at Clareville near Carterton. Marshall confirmed that TAIC would be issuing an interim inquiry report within the next few months. The interim report would aim to describe what happened, ahead of a final inquiry report expected early next year that would analyse why events unfolded as they did, and what might be done in order to reduce the chance of a recurrence. "The ballooning community and the wider public can be assured that TAIC will, as it has done with this recommendation, call for action to address any significant issue as soon as it is found rather than leaving it to publication of a final report," he said. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 23, 2012 11:34:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 23, 2012 11:55:50 GMT 12
Am I right to be concerned at statements like it appears that the manufacturer’s maintenance procedures for the balloon may not have been used to ensure that the appropriate maintenance tasks and procedures were carried out correctly, as required by Civil Aviation Rules 43.53(3)(i) and 43.53(5)-(9) (which deal with performance of maintenance). It appears that the industry is not using the manufacturer’s required “grab test” to test the strength of the material that makes up the balloon envelope (the structure that contains the hot air). Also, there is no record of the results of the required tests, which are relevant to the balloon’s intended purpose; As in procedures required by the manuafacturer are not being followed by the ballooning industry, and CAA didn't know this? If it's industry-wide, CAA audits of maintainence should have picked this up, right? |
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Feb 23, 2012 12:41:19 GMT 12
It concerns me that theyve made these "initial " findings public quite early, possibly effectively crucifying the operator or the craft's maintenance guys in the eyes of those without good relevant aviation experience.
Sure, if theres genuine concerns about some issues, then how about dealing directly with other users, and get them sorted?
This cant be good for the industry as a whole??
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 23, 2012 12:44:46 GMT 12
CAA audits of maintainence should have picked this up, right? Yep it is audit type stuff. The review of the paper work has obviously come across some omissions. It is not to say the aircraft is physically not airworthy, - just that because maintenance has not been carried out iaw Part 43 then the aircraft is deemed to be unairworthy. As for the audit, well it may not necessarily be carried out by CAA. It depends what Rules apply, - generally based on category of the Cof A but also on the Operator's Maintenance Programme. Generally most aircraft are subject to an ARA or RA..... a Review of Airworthiness carried out by an IA. The Review is a sizeable checklist that ensures the machine is being maintained iaw the programme and that all AD's etc have been addressed. I am reading between the lines here and it would appear that the review has been overlooked. I think the CAA involvement will be to check that all balloons on the register have indeed had their reviews done at the appropriate time. They will obviously then audit some of the results. Some, but not many, will be on commercial airwork and should come under a system of maintenance. I am sure they will come under closer scrutiny. I doubt very much that the IA has failed in his duties regards completion of the form. Part 43 is probably the one most likely overlooked by the operators. They will take particular care with Parts 91 and 61 but often their efforts with Parts 43 and 21 are not so good. By the letter of the law, any uncertified pilot maintenance would deem the aircraft unairworthy. Well at least any requiring a Release to Service.... In the case of a commercial operation such as this, the findings may be compared to flying without a current medical, or without completing a flight review. Probably a serious omission for a commercial venture. Having said that it may have had nothing to do with the incident itself. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 23, 2012 13:14:32 GMT 12
Thanks Baronbrezza, about what I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 24, 2012 9:00:53 GMT 12
It concerns me that theyve made these "initial " findings public quite early, possibly effectively crucifying the operator or the craft's maintenance guys in the eyes of those without good relevant aviation experience. Sure, if theres genuine concerns about some issues, then how about dealing directly with other users, and get them sorted? This cant be good for the industry as a whole?? I guess that they'd thought what they've found to date serious enough to release the Urgent recommendation meant they had no choice but to release a statement Once that hit the streets people will quickly put 2 and 2 together |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 24, 2012 11:15:13 GMT 12
This concerns me also.
I was very surprised to see the TAIC Chief Commissioner to make some rather emotive comments during a TV interview.
I was with a very large group of IA's and some CAA staff when we discussed this earlier in the week. While the CAA could not discuss an active investigation they were keen to gather feedback on manufacturer's schedules and how they fitted into the maintenance programme.
With most certified fixed-wing and rotary-wing machines there did not seem to be an issue. The manufacturers schedules were identified in the log books and the IA (Senior LAME holding an Inspection Authorisation) just ensured it was up to date and in turn was being certified correctly.
I thought the CAA had a very good system running in this country and had a good grasp of the activities.
I have since seen that with over 70 balloons flying there are only 7 LAMES endorsed with an LTA rating. (Lighter than Air).
A few years ago we had a similar situation with Group 3 Aircraft (Wood and/or Fabric).
Very few LAMES holding Gp3 were actually active in the industry.
From what I can make out that situation was alleviated by issuing MA (Maintenance Approvals) to owners.
I am wondering whether the 7 LAMES are the total number of LTA certifiers or whether there may indeed be some certifying under an MA.
Regardless, the IA has to be independent and conduct the ARA in a thoroughly professional manner. In my experience they always have been.
No doubt we will see more released in coming weeks but as suggested above, the finger at the moment is pointed at the maintainers.
My reading of this particular crash was that other factors may have had more affect on the unfortunate and sad outcome.
John Marshall QC was obviously very concerned about the airworthiness aspects though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 24, 2012 11:17:14 GMT 12
This must be going to dent a few ballooning businesses, even if they are all above board people will be sceptical to buy a flight with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Feb 25, 2012 1:35:39 GMT 12
Nothing to do with the incident above (before bricks get thrown at me) but I'd love to know how many people would fly on one? I jump out of planes, fly my little microlight and fly in aircraft every day for work. Balloons (passenger type) scare me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Feb 25, 2012 6:35:07 GMT 12
The balloon which crashed in Carterton killing 11 people may not have been airworthy, investigators have found. If that was the case, then bang goes any insurance cover. Nothing to do with the incident above (before bricks get thrown at me) but I'd love to know how many people would fly on one? I jump out of planes, fly my little microlight and fly in aircraft every day for work. Balloons (passenger type) scare me... I have done a couple of small hops in balloons in NZ plus a two-hour flight in one in Queensland (Port Douglas). A marvelous experience. I would not hesitate to repeat if the opportunity arises again. There were a few car crashes on the roads yesterday, will you refuse to ever get in a car again from today? |
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Feb 25, 2012 12:15:57 GMT 12
I would love to go on a hot air balloon. It must be one of the few modes of air travel I have yet to sample.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 25, 2012 20:49:55 GMT 12
There were a few car crashes on the roads yesterday, will you refuse to ever get in a car again from today? And that “hits the nail right on the head!” The most dangerous (to your health) means of transport all use public roads. Yet we all continue to use those means of transport which use public roads. You are more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash on the way to or from an airport/drop-zone/balloon launching paddock than you are actually flying in an aeroplane/jumping out of an aeroplane/riding in a hot-air-balloon basket. |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Feb 25, 2012 23:04:03 GMT 12
I know all these 'facts and figures' but still, I don't know about ballooning. Not many safety mechanisms in place should something go wrong. Like the flames burning through the envelope. With aircraft, engine stops you have a wing to keep flying, skydiving you have a reserve. Not many back-ups (if any) in a balloon is the point I'm trying to make. Sure, everything has a risk but at least (just maybe) you may be able to have a back-up if the old brown stuff does hit the fan. Weird, I won't bungee either  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 26, 2012 11:13:23 GMT 12
Have balloon baskets ever been fitted with emergency parachutes, like the type that are now being used in some light aircraft for if the engine stops?
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 26, 2012 11:28:12 GMT 12
Have balloon baskets ever been fitted with emergency parachutes, like the type that are now being used in some light aircraft for if the engine stops? I dont think it would be feasable since in an emergency the balloon itself is going to be in the way , uless some sort of quick release was used , but this would require a LOT of height ( certainly higher than they often fly at ) . Lots of people have of course parachuted from balloons . |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 26, 2012 11:41:06 GMT 12
Yes, I agree. I just wondered if any emergency system had been trialled.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 26, 2012 15:36:28 GMT 12
I won't bungee either I've done more than a dozen bungy jumps and I'm still here to tell the tale. I even did a 1,000-foot bungy jump out of a helicopter hovering 1,100 feet above the ground in April 1994...now that was the absolute ultimate in adrenalin-rush and FUN!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 29, 2012 12:46:44 GMT 12
Update on the TAIC/CAA investigation Press report only at this stage, there doesn't seem to be anything on the TAIC site as yet. UPDATE: it is from the CAA, "NOTE: Steve Douglas (Director)will be available to speak to this press release for a short time today at 3pm at the CAA’s Wellington offices" www.caa.govt.nz/public_and_media_info/caa_releases/balloon_checks.htmwww.stuff.co.nz/national/6499324/Balloon-safety-check-failures-foundSixteen hot air balloons are to be checked after a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) investigation showed an engineer had failed to properly conduct safety tests. CAA investigators have contacted all five active hot-air balloon maintainers as part of their investigation into the Carterton balloon tragedy, which killed 11 people last month. While they were satisfied in most cases that practices were at or above the required minimum safety standards, one maintainer will be investigated further. "Early indications are that in one case, not all maintenance practices have been followed according to the required standard," said CAA director Steve Douglas. "For example, tests of the strength and porosity of the balloon envelope have not been conducted using the equipment and techniques specified in the maintenance manual, and the engineer has relied upon individual experience and judgement instead. "Accordingly, I have directed the CAA investigation to continue in more depth, and this will be the basis of any further safety action. "In the meantime, the 16 hot-air balloons maintained by this party will be rechecked to remove any uncertainty regarding their airworthiness," Mr Douglas said. Concerns about balloon maintenance were raised during the Transport Accident Investigation Commission's (TAIC) examination of the hot-air balloon accident near Carterton earlier this year. It said a strength test on the balloon's envelope and a fuel system inspection were not done correctly, and documentation was incomplete. "TAIC has not determined whether or not maintenance issues were a factor in the accident. "However, the CAA must be assured that all participants carrying out activities in the civil aviation system do so safely and in accordance with prescribed safety requirements," Mr Douglas said. "The CAA will complete its investigations of balloon maintenance activity and take action as necessary to ensure the safety of the public." © Fairfax NZ News |
|
|
|
Post by pjw4118 on Feb 29, 2012 14:34:05 GMT 12
Interesting discussion. As a fraidy cat I have always turned down opportunities to go ballooning after watching two incidents on our farm near Muriwai, where the downdraft forced the basket into tree tops. Massive gas burning and roaring and away they went leaving paddocks suddenly stock free and us with mouths open.
My fraidy cat preservation system was increased on Tuesday morning when a very large blue balloon landed between the new North Shore and SH 16 motorways. As well as being within Whenuapai controlled airspace , a motorway at rush hour isnt the best place to land next to.
I will stick to the more normal methods of flying , thank you.
|
|
