The removal of fluid quantity markings from, and unapproved modifications to the helicopter’s spray tank by the operator increased the risk of overweight operations
The aircraft operator’s documented design objectives did not explicitly require the protection of non-structural systems from liquid contact or ingress.
Neither the maintenance provider, nor the helicopter operator appreciated the potential significance of mid-span transposition information to the joint testing task.
There was no direct supervision of the joint testing operations.
The recording lineworker’s shoulder restraint had been repaired using an unapproved stitch pattern and density.
The operator's joint testing procedures were not comprehensive with respect to hazard identification and the use of standard phraseology.
On 30 November 2010 the ATSB had, in close consultation with Rolls-Royce and the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch, established that the occurrence was directly related to the fatigue cracking of an oil feed stub pipe within the No.2 engine’s HP/IP bearing support structure. The ATSB identified the following safety issue:
The Out of Hours telephone numbers for Proserpine Airport, listed in the Jeppesen Airways Manual, were incorrect.
Practices used within the ATS Group did not ensure that NOTAMs were effectively reviewed and communicated.
There were no published communications procedures or phraseology that should before used by pilots during firebombing operations to provide separation assurance at fire locations when there was no air attack supervisor present.
Confusion within the aerial application industry concerning the correct authorisation for a supervisor of a pilot with an Agriculture Pilot (Aeroplane) Rating Grade 2 (Ag 2) increases the risk of an inappropriately qualified person supervising such a pilot.
The lack of guidance material for the supervision of a pilot with an Agriculture Pilot (Aeroplane) Rating Grade 2 increases the risk of inadequate supervision of such a pilot
The training and assessment system was ineffective, in this case, because it placed an individual with deficiencies in scanning and conflict resolution in a control position.
While maintaining the appropriate general quality accreditation (ISO 9001) of its engineering facilities, the operator did not maintain independent accreditation of the specific procedures and facilities used for the inspection, maintenance and re-certification of oxygen cylinders.
The safety information provided to passengers did not adequately explain that oxygen will flow to the masks without the reservoir bag inflating.
Some cabin crew-members did not have an appropriate understanding of the aircraft's emergency descent profile, leading to misapprehensions regarding the significance of the situation.
The operator's cabin emergency procedures did not include specific crew actions to be carried out in the event of a PATR failure.
Cabin crew training facilities did not appropriately replicate the equipment installed within the aircraft, including the drop-down oxygen mask assemblies.
Some cabin crew-members did not have an appropriate understanding of the oxygen mask flow indication system.
Following the separation of the IP turbine disc from the drive arm, the engine behaved in a manner that differed from the engine manufacturer’s modelling and experience with other engines in the Trent family, with the result that the IP turbine disc accelerated to a rotational speed in excess of its design capacity whereupon it burst in a hazardous manner.
