The eddy current inspection used on VH-TZJ, and other M18 aircraft, had not been approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as an alternate means of compliance to airworthiness directive AD/PZL/5. This exposed those aircraft to an inspection method that was potentially ineffective at detecting cracks in the wing attachment fittings.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority did not have a defined process for a robust, systematic approach to the assessment and approval of alternative non-destructive inspection procedures to ensure that the proposed method provided an equivalent, or better, level of safety than the original procedure.
Important information relating to Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) airworthiness directive AD/PZL/5 was not contained in CASA’s airworthiness directive file, but on other CASA files with no cross-referencing between those files. This impacted CASA’s future ability to reliably discover that information and make appropriately‑informed decisions regarding the airworthiness directive.
Operators of some Australian M18 Dromaders, particularly those fitted with turbine engines and enlarged hoppers and those operating under Australian supplemental type certificate (STC) SVA521, have probably conducted flights at weights for which airframe life factoring was required but not applied. The result is that some of these aircraft could be close to or have exceeded their prescribed airframe life, increasing the risk of an in-flight failure of the aircraft’s structure.
The engineering justification supporting Australian supplemental type certificate SVA521 did not contain consideration of the effect an increase in the average operating speed could have on the rate of fatigue damage accumulation.
Cape Splendor’s safety management system (SMS) procedures for working over the side of the ship were not effectively implemented. As a result, the ship’s crew routinely did not take all the required safety precautions when working over the side. Further, they did not consider that any such precautions were necessary if going over the side when not working.
The safety culture on board Cape Splendor was not well developed and the ship’s managers had identified it as such. A consequence of this inadequacy was the ineffective implementation of working over the side procedures, including the general belief by its crew that safe work practices applied only when working, and not during recreational activities.
The spin recovery methods taught by the flying school were inconsistent across instructors and training material, and were not always appropriate for the Chipmunk aircraft type used by the school.
Sydney Trains' fatigue management processes were ineffective in identifying the fatigue impairment experienced by the driver.
It was likely that, because of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s policy at the time, their engineering assessment of the tie rod design for inclusion in the manufacturer’s Australian Parts Manufacturer Approval did not consider the service history of the original tie rods or identify that they were subject to airworthiness directive AD/DH 82/10. Consequently, the assessment team was likely unaware that the original tie rods were subject to a life limitation, and did not require the life limits for the replacement tie rods to be established.
Over 1,000 parts were approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for Australian Parts Manufacturer Approval using a policy that accepted existing design approvals without the authority confirming that important service factors, such as service history and life‑limits, were appropriately considered.
The JRA-776-1 fuselage lateral tie rods that were inspected by the ATSB were not appropriately marked with part and serial numbers, affecting the traceability and service history of the parts in a number of aircraft.
The manufacturer’s quality system did not prevent non-conforming tie rods from being released for use on aircraft.
Together with a number of other Australian Tiger Moths, VH-TSG was fitted with non‑standard Joint H attachment bolts that did not conform to the original design with the result that the integrity of the Joint H could not be assured.
When approving the change in material for the manufacture of the replacement tie rods, the design engineer did not identify that the original parts had a life limitation, or that they had shown susceptibility to fatigue cracking. As a result, the engineer did not compare the fatigue performance of the alternative design to the original, and the replacement tie rods were manufactured to that design and released into service with an unknown fatigue life.
Although a number of aerobatic manoeuvres were permitted in Tiger Moth aircraft, there was no limitation on the amount of aerobatic operations that was considered to be safe. As a result, operators may be unaware that a high aerobatic usage may exceed the original design assumptions for the aircraft.
ARTC processes for managing the condition of the rail were ineffective despite repeated recording of rail head wear by the AK Car, and local knowledge of the worn rail. The rail was worn beyond the rail condemning limits specified within the network code of practice.
The ARTC response to the derailment on 11 September 2013 was ineffective and did not prevent a similar derailment at the same location on 30 October.
When the AK Car was operating in Manual mode, the methods used to identify the location of a defect, and assist track staff to locate the defect could be ineffective in certain scenarios. At the derailment location, there was a consistent offset of about 58 m between the recorded location of the wide-gauge defect and its actual location due to the presence of a ‘long kilometre’.
Track patrol processes were ineffective at detecting and remedying the wide gauge defect at the derailment location. Track patrols were overly reliant on the AK Car geometry recording vehicle to trigger maintenance action on this track geometry defect.
