Fugro Equator’s deep tow system detected a cluster of small sonar contacts in the southern part of the search area, 12 nautical miles to the east of the 7^th arc. The sonar data was carefully analysed and categorised as Class 2 – “of potential interest but unlikely to be related to MH370.” It could not, however, be ruled out.

“We were cautious about this,” said the ATSB’s Peter Foley, Director of the Operational Search for MH370. “There were characteristics of the contact that made it unlikely to be MH370, but there were also aspects that generated interest, multiple small bright reflections in a relatively small area of otherwise featureless seabed. All the sonar data we gather goes through a detailed analysis and an exhaustive review process to ascertain its quality, coverage and most importantly any sonar contacts of interest. The analysis starts with the mission crew on board the search vessels, data is then reviewed again ashore by sonar analysts at Fugro’s office in Perth and then it is independently reviewed by the sonar experts in the ATSB’s Operational Search team. The process is methodical, meticulous and it is designed to ensure that nothing is missed. In this case we  planned to resurvey the contact in more detail when the opportunity arose.”

Therefore Fugro Supporter was tasked to divert on its passage between two search areas and further investigate the contact.  A high-resolution sonar scan was performed using the AUV. The high-resolution data revealed a large number of sonar contacts lying very close to the seafloor, at a depth of around 3900 metres. The majority of the contacts were comparatively small – around the size of a cricket ball – interspersed with a few larger items, the biggest being box shaped and approximately 6 metres in its longest dimension.  The debris field appeared to be of man-made origin but once again it did not exhibit all the characteristics of a typical aircraft debris field.

An additional AUV low-altitude mission was then undertaken using the underwater camera to gather images of the field.  Poor weather conditions, however, prevented the safe launching of the AUV for several days. 

Analysis of the images this week revealed that the debris was indeed man-made, but indicated that it was actually the wreck of a ship.  This wreck is previously uncharted and the imagery will be provided to expert marine archaeologists for possible identification.    

“It’s a fascinating find,” said Foley, “but it’s not what we’re looking for. We’re not pausing in the search for MH370, in fact the vessels have already moved on to continue the mission. Obviously, we’re disappointed that it wasn’t the aircraft, but we were always realistic about the likelihood. And this event has really demonstrated that the systems, people and the equipment involved in the search are working well. It’s shown that if there’s a debris field in the search area, we’ll find it.”

Ship-related debris on the sea floor, including an anchor

Source: ATSB, photo by Fugro.

An additional AUV low-altitude mission was then undertaken using the underwater camera to gather images of the field. Poor weather conditions, however, prevented the safe launching of the AUV for several days.  

Analysis of the images this week revealed that the debris was indeed man-made, but indicated that it was actually the wreck of a ship. This wreck is previously uncharted and the imagery will be provided to expert marine archaeologists for possible identification.   

Ship-related debris on the sea floor

Source: ATSB, photo by Fugro

Ship-related debris on the sea floor. White sea stars can be seen on some of the debris while the black objects are believed to be lumps of coal

Source: ATSB, photo by Fugro

Read more about MH370

The ATSB is a proud partner of Privacy Awareness Week (PAW) 2015. This year, PAW is being held from 3–9 May

• The theme for 2015 is Privacy everyday.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is a proud partner of Privacy Awareness Week (PAW) 2015. PAW is an initiative of the Asia-Pacific Privacy Authorities, held every year to promote awareness of privacy issues and the importance of the protection of personal information. This year, PAW is being held from 3–9 May.

The theme for 2015 is Privacy everyday. Privacy should be an essential component of everyday life, including in transactions such as internet banking, social media and online shopping. We recognise that our customers value their privacy, and we make your privacy important to us everyday.

You can find out more about how we protect you privacy by reading our privacy policy, which is available on our website at www.atsb.gov.au.  Our policy addresses the following issues:

• the types of personal information collected and held by the ATSB (including sensitive information);
• how and why we collect personal information;
• how the ATSB stores personal information;
• use and disclosure of personal information (including overseas disclosure);
• how you can access and correct your personal information; and
• how you can make a privacy complaint to us.

Of course, we are not the only agency that collects your personal information. Here are some tips from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner(Opens in a new tab/window) to help you protect your own personal information:

• Know your privacy rights
• Read privacy policies and notices
• Always ask why, how and who — this will help you to know how your personal information is going to be used
• Check your credit report
• Protect yourself online
• Be aware of your mobile security
• Use security software
• Be careful what you share on social media
• Don't leave your personal information lying around — make sure your records are properly destroyed
• Beware of scams

More information on your privacy rights is available at www.oaic.gov.au/PAW(Opens in a new tab/window).

A new memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Australia’s transport safety investigator and civil aviation safety regulator places a renewed emphasis on cooperation to improve aviation safety.

Mr Martin Dolan, the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), and Mr Mark Skidmore, the Director of Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), signed the new MoU on 30 March 2015.

Mr Dolan said, ‘the MOU spells out how the two agencies will cooperate in the interests of improving aviation safety.  We are working together—with the ATSB identifying safety issues through its investigations and findings, and CASA and the industry responding to those issues, as appropriate—to promote high standards of aviation safety.’

The MoU contains protocols for interactions between the two agencies. It covers notifications of accidents and incidents and procedures around access to evidence, exchange of information and initiating safety action. 

Significantly, both agencies have reiterated a commitment to tell the other agency about matters they reasonably believe the other agency needs to know for safety purposes.

Mr Skidmore said, ‘It is important for the agencies to share safety information while recognising that there are limits to what the accident investigator can provide to the regulator.  CASA will only ask for information if it is clearly in the interests of safety.  The ATSB makes the decision on what information is provided to CASA.  If CASA has information it believes relevant to an ATSB investigation, it will let the ATSB know.’

The MoU is for three years with an annual review of its content.

• Download MoU between ATSB and CASA [
  PDF: 945KB (944.94 KB)
  ] (944.94 KB)

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released its latest Bulletin of short investigations covering incidents from November last year through to February this year.

Issue 40 of the Bulletin covers 10 safety investigations and highlights valuable safety lessons for pilots, operators and safety managers.

Released periodically, the Bulletin provides a summary of the less-complex factual investigation reports conducted by the ATSB. The results, based on information supplied by organisations or individuals involved in the occurrence, detail the facts behind the event, as well as any safety actions undertaken or identified.

Issue 40 of the Bulletin features 
10 safety investigations.

The Bulletin also highlights important safety messages for the broader aviation community, drawing on earlier ATSB investigations and research.

Issue 40 of the Bulletin features 10 safety investigations:

Piston aircraft

• Wheels-up landing involving a Cessna 210, VH-MCE
• Wheels-up landing involving a Cessna 310, VH-TBE
• Near collision involving a Cessna 152, VH-NKL and a Starduster SA300, VH-XRS
• Wheels-up approach and go-around involving Piper PA-31-350, VH-TXK
• Taxiing collision involving a Cessna 172S, VH-EOT and a Cessna 172S, VH-EOP
• Collision after landing involving a Fletcher FU-24, VH-KXT and a Gippsland GA-200, VH-AGZ
• Collision with terrain involving a Liberty XL-2, VH-CZT

Helicopters

• Collision with terrain involving a Robinson R22, VH-SSD
• Collision with terrain involving a Robinson R22, VH-ZBH
• Collision with terrain involving a Robinson R44, VH-YYF

Follow this link to: Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin - Issue 40

Previous editions

The Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin covers a range of the ATSB’s short investigations and highlights valuable safety lessons for pilots, operators and safety managers.

Released periodically, the Bulletin provides a summary of the less-complex factual investigation reports conducted by the ATSB. The results, based on information supplied by organisations or individuals involved in the occurrence, detail the facts behind the event, as well as any safety actions undertaken. The Bulletin also highlights important Safety Messages for the broader aviation community, drawing on earlier ATSB investigations and research.

Issue 39 of the Bulletin features 10 safety investigations:

Jet aircraft

• Loss of separation involving a Boeing 717, VH-NXL, and a vehicle
• Incorrect configuration involving an Airbus A320, VH-VFU

Turboprop aircraft

• Flight crew incapacitation involving a Reims Aviation F406, VH-EYQ
• Runway undershoot involving a Pilatus PC-12, VH-HIG
• Collision with terrain involving an Air Tractor AT-502B, VH-PTF

Piston aircraft

• Collision with terrain involving a Cessna 172, VH-ZZD
• Proximity event between a Robinson R44, VH-JKF and a Cessna 172, VH-EVR

Helicopters

• Aircraft proximity event between two Robinson R22s, VH-HQJ and VH-IAY, and an unknown aircraft
• Separation issue between a Robinson R44, VH-YDK, and a Bell 412, VH-EWA
• Forced landing and ground fire involving a Robinson R44, VH-YYS

Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin - Issue 39

Previous edition

Mr Chris Manning has been appointed to the ATSB Commission with effect 9 March 2015 for a period of three years.

Mr Chris Manning has been appointed to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Commission with effect 9 March 2015 for a period of three years.  He will be the fourth member of the ATSB Commission.

Mr Manning has extensive aviation operational and safety management experience particularly in his former positions as Qantas chief pilot and group general manager of flight operations. 

Mr Martin Dolan, the Chief Commissioner has warmly welcomed the appointment saying, ‘I, and the other Commissioners, look forward to working closely with Mr Manning.

‘His experience, particularly in the aviation business, will add considerably to the overall body of knowledge held by the Commission’, said Mr Dolan.

The Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Hon Warren Truss MP made the official announcement via media release on 24 February 2015.

The Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin covers a range of the ATSB’s short investigations and highlights valuable safety lessons for pilots, operators and safety managers.

Released periodically, the Bulletin provides a summary of the less-complex factual investigation reports conducted by the ATSB. The results, based on information supplied by organisations or individuals involved in the occurrence, detail the facts behind the event, as well as any safety actions undertaken. The Bulletin also highlights important Safety Messages for the broader aviation community, drawing on earlier ATSB investigations and research.

Issue 38 of the Bulletin features 10 safety investigations:

Jet aircraft

• Fumes event involving an Airbus A330, VH-XFB

Piston aircraft

• Engine failure involving a Beech Aircraft Corp D17-S, VH-FNS
• Near collision involving a Grob G115, VH-BBJ and a Grob G115, VH-ZIM
• Loss of control involving a Piper Aircraft Corp PA-28-161, VH-TEK
• Near collision involving an Evektor Sportstar 24-4467, and a PA28R, Piper Arrow, VH-KGP
• Wirestrike involving a Piper PA-25, VH-CPU
• Collision with terrain involving a Cessna 206, VH-KRR
• Near collision involving a de Havilland DHC-2, VH-AWD and a Gippsland Aeronautics GA-8, VH-NOQ

Helicopters

• Loss of control during landing, involving a Bell 206B3, VH-CLR
• Windshear event involving a Eurocopter EC120B, VH-BGB

Read the ATSB’s Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin – Issue 38

The Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin covers a range of the ATSB’s short investigations and highlights valuable safety lessons for pilots, operators and safety managers.

Released periodically, the Bulletin provides a summary of the less-complex factual investigation reports conducted by the ATSB. The results, based on information supplied by organisations or individuals involved in the occurrence, detail the facts behind the event, as well as any safety actions undertaken. The Bulletin also highlights important Safety Messages for the broader aviation community, drawing on earlier ATSB investigations and research.

Issue 37 of the Bulletin features 9 safety investigations:

Jet aircraft

• Operational event involving an Airbus A320, VH-VNQ

Turboprop aircraft

• Loading event involving a Bombardier DHC-8, VH-LQK

Piston aircraft

• Separation issue involving a Skyfox Aviation CA25N, 24-3265, and a Piper PA-28R, VH-WJO
• Collision during landing, involving a GA8 Gippsland Airvan, VH-XHV

Helicopters

• Loss of control involving a Robinson R44, VH-NUZ
• Collision with terrain involving a Robinson R44, VH-HLB

Recreational aircraft

• Loss of control involving a Jabiru J230, 24-7491

Hot air balloons

• Landing accident involving a Kavanagh Balloons D-84, VH-YPI
• Hard landing involving a Kavanagh Balloon, VH-CNX

Read the ATSB’s Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin – Issue 37

Data input errors continue to be a problem in aviation, with three recent incidents highlighting the need for greater attention to detail.

Data input errors continue to be a problem in aviation, with three recent incidents highlighting the need for greater attention to detail.

In two instances, involving a Boeing 737 and an Airbus A330, the correct loading weight was not supplied to the flight crews, prior to departure.

Incident No.1

Handlers in Bali miscalculated the number of bags loaded onto a commercial Boeing 737 flight to Melbourne. The total number of bags loaded was 189, instead of 93, with an estimated additional weight of about 1,600 kg. 

The load control team leader assessed the additional baggage weight was acceptable, that adequate fuel had been uploaded to cater for the extra weight and elected not to advise the flight crew of the discrepancy.

At the time of the occurrence there was no formal procedure to advise flight crew of a loadsheet discrepancy. However, if the flight crew were advised of loadsheet discrepancy in-flight, it is envisaged the additional weight figure would have been used to modify the approach speeds that had been generated, based on the weight entered into the flight management computer prior to departure. For an extra weight of 1,600 kg, the captain reported the approach speeds would normally increase by about 1-2 kt.

The flight arrived safely.

Second incident

In the second incident, involving an Airbus A330 flying from Perth to Brisbane, ground staff at Brisbane discovered an unlisted cargo weighing 1,467 kg that was supposed to have been offloaded in Perth.

As a result of both these incidents, the airline took several steps, including refresher training, to remedy the situation.

Incident No. 3

Loading of freight caused the pilot of a Fairchild SA227 to reject a take-off at Rockhampton.

Passing the take-off safety speed (V₁), as the pilot increased the back pressure on the control yoke to rotate the aircraft for take-off, the control column felt heavy and the aircraft nose wheel did not lift off the ground. The pilot continued to increase the back trim and back pressure on the control yoke and the ‘out of trim’ warning sounded.

After taxiing the aircraft back to the bay, the pilot requested the freight be re-weighed. He recalculated the aircraft weight and balance with the actual freight distribution and found the centre of gravity slightly more forward than the original load sheet position.

Overall, the actual freight loaded weighed about 30 kg more than that stated on the load plan. One of the aircraft’s freight ‘zones’ was loaded with 72 kg more than the placard maximum weight for that zone. A revised trim sheet was prepared using the re-weigh information and found that the aircraft was within the centre of gravity limits for the proposed flight with a centre of gravity slightly forward of the original calculated position.

Following the incident, the operator advised the ATSB it was taking several safety actions, including investigating the management of ground handling and the manner in which aircraft are loaded at all ports.

All three incidents highlight the ATSB’s broad safety concerns about data input errors, such as incorrect loading figures. The consequences of these errors can include a range of aircraft handling and performance issues.

• Read the investigation reports in the ATSB’s latest short investigation bulletin issue 36.
• More information about data input errors and the ATSB’s other transport safety priorities can be found on the ATSB’s SafetyWatch page.
• Data input errors video

The rate that aircraft are striking wildlife has reduced in the past two years following four years’ of growth.

The rate that aircraft are striking wildlife has reduced in the past two years following four years’ of growth.

Birdstrikes are the most common aviation occurrence and continue to be a significant economic risk for aerodrome and airline operators and a potential safety risk for pilots.

More than 1,500 birdstrikes  are reported to the ATSB each year.  Most involve high-capacity air transport aircraft.  However, since 2011, the birdstrike rate per aircraft movement for seven of the 10 major airports has reduced. Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney had lower rates in 2013 than in 2004.

The ATSB’s latest biannual update of aviation wildlife strike statistics shows that although the number of birdstrikes has continued to increase for all operation types, due to increasing aircraft movements, the rate per aircraft movement has actually decreased slightly in recent years.

Domestic high-capacity air transport aircraft were those most often involved in birdstrikes, and the strike rate per aircraft movement for these aircraft was significantly higher than all other categories. However, the number of the incidents with the potential for more serious consequences due to engine ingestion is at its lowest level in 10 years.

There were 3,400 birdstrikes in 2012–13, with the four most commonly struck wildlife being kites, bats/flying foxes, lapwings/plovers and galahs.

Kites had the most significant increase in the number of reported strikes per year in the past two years, with the species being involved in an average of 129 strikes per year for 2012 and 2013, compared with 84 per year on average across the entire 10-year reporting period.

Historically, birdstrikes have not been a significant safety risk to civilian air travel in Australia. ATSB data dating to 1969 shows no civilian aviation fatalities attributed to birdstrikes.

Compared to birdstrikes, non-flying animal strikes are relatively rare. The most common animals involved were hares and rabbits, kangaroos, dogs/foxes and wallabies. Damaging strikes mostly involved kangaroos, wallabies and livestock.

“The statistics provide a reminder to everyone involved in the operation of aircraft and aerodromes to be aware of the hazards posed to aircraft by birds and non-flying animals,” ATSB Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan said.

Read the full report: Australian aviation wildlife strike statistics 2004 - 2013