Incorrect configuration

Windshear event - Boeing 737-7BX, VH-VBR, Melbourne Airport, Victoria, on 24 August 2010

Summary

On 24 August 2010, a Boeing Aircraft Company 737-700 aircraft, registered VH-VBR, was being operated on a passenger flight between Sydney, New South Wales and Melbourne, Victoria.

During the descent into Melbourne, at about 900 ft, the aircraft encountered windshear, resulting in the airspeed increasing rapidly. The pilot in command (PIC) immediately initiated a missed approach in accordance with the operator's windshear escape manoeuvre. During the manoeuvre, the PIC observed a 'PULL UP' alert momentarily activate on the primary flight display (PFD).

As the crew was visual and a positive rate of climb established, the copilot believed that the windshear escape manoeuvre had been completed and the normal go-around procedure had been commenced. Consequently, the copilot selected 15 degrees of flap, the setting used when conducting a go-around, and queried whether the aircraft's landing gear should be retracted.

The aircraft was climbed to 5,000 ft and an approach and landing on runway 27 was conducted, without further incident. After landing, the PIC reported the windshear occurrence and possible flap overspeed to the maintenance engineers. An inspection of the leading and trailing edge flaps was carried out with nil defects found.

The Flight Safety Foundation states that flight crew awareness and alertness are key factors in the successful application of windshear avoidance and recovery techniques.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number AO-2010-064
Occurrence date 24/08/2010
Location Melbourne Aerodrome
State Victoria
Report release date 28/01/2011
Report status Final
Investigation level Short
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 737
Registration VH-VBR
Serial number 30745
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Sydney, NSW
Destination Melbourne, Vic.
Damage Nil

Incorrect aircraft configuration - Airbus A321-231, VH-VWW, Changi International Airport, Singapore, on 27 May 2010

Summary

At 1845 Singapore Time on 27 May 2010, an Airbus A321-231, registered VH-VWW and operating as Jetstar flight JQ57, was undertaking a landing at Singapore Changi International Airport. The aircraft was not in the correct landing configuration by 500 ft height above the aerodrome and, as required by the operator's procedures in the case of an unstable approach, the crew carried out a missed approach.

The investigation identified several events on the flight deck during the approach that distracted the crew to the point where their situation awareness was lost, decision making was affected and inter‑crew communication degraded. In addition, it was established that the first officer's performance was probably adversely affected by fatigue.

The investigation did not identify any organisational or systemic issues that might adversely impact the future safety of aviation operations. However, following this occurrence, the aircraft operator proactively reviewed its procedures and made a number of amendments to its training regime and other enhancements to its operation.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number AO-2010-035
Occurrence date 27/05/2010
Location Singapore Changi International
State International
Report release date 19/04/2012
Report status Final
Investigation level Systemic
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Serious Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Airbus
Model A321
Registration VH-VWW
Serial number 3916
Aircraft operator Jetstar
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Darwin, NT
Destination Singapore
Damage Nil

Incorrect aircraft configuration - Boeing 767-300, VH-OGP, 1.5 km north of Sydney Airport, New South Wales, on 26 October 2009

Summary

At 0735 Eastern Daylight-saving Time on 26 October 2009, VH-OGP, a Qantas Airways Boeing 767-300, initiated a go-around manoeuvre from an approach into Sydney Airport, New South Wales. The aircraft immediately returned for a normal landing. The go-around was initiated due to the crew becoming aware that the aircraft was not properly configured for landing. Almost simultaneously, the 'Too Low Gear' automated warning activated, which indicated that the aircraft's landing gear was not extended.

The incorrect aircraft configuration was the result of several interruptions and distractions during the approach. These interruptions and distractions resulted in a breakdown in the pilots' situational awareness.

The investigation identified a number of minor safety issues in the operator's procedures and monitoring systems and Qantas Airways has advised of safety action in response.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number AO-2009-066
Occurrence date 26/10/2009
Location 1.5 km north of Sydney Airport
State New South Wales
Report release date 18/10/2011
Report status Final
Investigation level Systemic
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Serious Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 767
Registration VH-OGP
Serial number 28153
Aircraft operator Qantas Airways
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Melbourne, Vic.
Destination Sydney, NSW
Damage Nil

Mode awareness issue - VH-­NXN, near Ayers Rock Aerodrome, Northern Territory, on 14 July 2009

Summary

On 14 July 2009, at about 0948 Central Standard Time, the flight crew of a Boeing 717-200 aircraft, registered VH-NXN, were conducting a
visual approach to runway 13 at Ayers Rock, Northern Territory. While carrying out a practise circling approach, the pilot in command observed what he believed to be abnormal engine response.

While the flight crew addressed the apparent engine problem, the aircraft's airspeed reduced below the normal manoeuvring speed on two occasions. However, the aircraft landed without further incident and a subsequent analysis of recorded data indicated that safe control of the aircraft was maintained throughout.

In response to this incident, the operator issued a Notice to Pilots regarding autothrottle mode awareness and made a number of changes to the Boeing 717 operations manuals.

Those changes described a number of restrictions on the automation modes used during critical stages of flight that the operator believed were appropriate to prevent automation 'surprises'.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number AO-2009-040
Occurrence date 14/07/2009
Location near Ayers Rock Aerodrome
State Northern Territory
Report release date 14/10/2010
Report status Final
Investigation level Short
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 717
Registration VH-NXN
Serial number 55095
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Unknown
Destination Ayers Rock, NT
Damage Nil

Go-around event, Melbourne Airport, Victoria, on 21 July 2007, VH-VQT, Airbus Industrie A320-232

Preliminary report

Preliminary report released 30 October 2007

This preliminary report details factual information established in the investigation’s early evidence collection phase and has been prepared to provide timely information to the industry and public. Preliminary reports contain no analysis or findings, which will be detailed in the investigation’s final report. The information contained in this preliminary report is released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

History of the flight 

On 21 July 2007, an Airbus A320-232 aircraft, registered VH-VQT, was being operated on a scheduled international regular public transport service between Christchurch, New Zealand and Melbourne, Australia.

Following an uneventful flight from New Zealand, the crew were conducting an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 27 at Melbourne. Weather conditions were forecast to include fog, which had subsequently eventuated and was likely to necessitate an instrument approach to the minimum altitude on the approach. The likelihood of the crew having to conduct a missed approach was high, as aircraft ahead of VQT had already conducted missed approaches because of the low visibility and fog. The crew had been aware of these conditions prior to departure and had flight planned accordingly. They had also conducted a briefing on the likelihood of having to conduct a missed approach prior to commencing the descent into Melbourne.

At the decision height on the ILS approach, the crew did not have the prescribed visual reference and commenced a missed approach. During the initial part of the missed approach, the crew were not aware that the aircraft had not transitioned to the expected flight guidance modes1 for the missed approach. When the aircraft did not respond as expected, the crew took manual control of the aircraft. The crew were subsequently processed by air traffic control (ATC) for another approach to Melbourne Airport. This second approach also resulted in the crew conducting a missed approach and the aircraft was subsequently diverted to Avalon Airport, where it landed uneventfully. During the second missed approach, the aircraft systems functioned correctly.

Summary

On 21 July 2007, an Airbus Industrie A320-232 aircraft was being operated on a scheduled international passenger service between Christchurch, New Zealand and Melbourne, Australia. At the decision height on the instrument approach into Melbourne, the crew conducted a missed approach as they did not have the required visual reference because of fog. The pilot in command did not perform the go-around procedure correctly and, in the process, the crew were unaware of the aircraft's current flight mode. The aircraft descended to within 38 ft of the ground before climbing.

The aircraft operator had changed the standard operating procedure for a go-around and, as a result, the crew were not prompted to confirm the aircraft's flight mode status until a number of other procedure items had been completed. As a result of the aircraft not initially climbing, and the crew being distracted by an increased workload and unexpected alerts and warnings, those items were not completed. The operator had not conducted a risk analysis of the change to the procedure and did not satisfy the incident reporting requirements of its safety management system (SMS) or of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

As a result of this occurrence, the aircraft operator changed its go-around procedure to reflect that of the aircraft manufacturer, and its SMS to require a formal risk management process in support of any proposal to change an aircraft operating procedure. In addition, the operator is reviewing its flight training requirements, has invoked a number of changes to its document control procedures, and has revised the incident reporting requirements of its SMS.

In addition to the safety action taken by the aircraft operator the aircraft manufacturer has, as a result of the occurrence, enhanced its published go-around procedures to emphasise the critical nature of the flight crew actions during a go-around.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number AO-2007-044
Occurrence date 21/07/2007
Location Melbourne Aerodrome
State Victoria
Report release date 01/03/2010
Report status Final
Investigation level Systemic
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Serious Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Airbus
Model A320
Registration VH-VQT
Serial number 2475
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Christchurch, NZ
Destination Melbourne, Vic.
Damage Nil

Powerplant/propulsion event – Sydney Airport, New South Wales, on 20 September 2006, VH-RXE, Saab SF-340B

Summary

The crew of a SAAB SF340B reported that shortly after take-off from Sydney Airport, NSW, they observed a zero reading on the left torque gauge and advised air traffic control that they were returning to land. During the approach, the crew made a PAN broadcast and advised that the left engine had been shut down. After landing the crew reported that they experienced airframe vibration and suspected a tyre had blown on landing. An inspection by emergency services personnel did not find any damage to the tyres and the crew taxied the aircraft to the terminal apron.

An examination of the aircraft systems could not find any reason for the zero reading on the left torque gauge, but the left digital engine control unit was replaced. A review of the crew's actions after they observed the loss of torque indication on the left torque gauge, found that they had selected the 'auto coarsen' switch to ON, prior to landing. That was contrary to directions in the flight crew operations manual that required the switch to be selected OFF when torque gauge indications read zero or were erratic. Consequently, the left propeller blades were automatically coarsened, effectively feathering the left propeller and resulted in an asymmetric landing.

The operator issued a notice to its aircrew reminding them of the requirement in the flight crew operations manual to not select 'auto coarsen' in these circumstances.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200605561
Occurrence date 20/09/2006
Location Sydney
State New South Wales
Report release date 31/03/2008
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Saab Aircraft Co.
Model 340
Registration VH-RXE
Serial number 275
Sector Turboprop
Operation type Air Transport Low Capacity
Departure point Sydney, NSW
Destination Merimbula, NSW
Damage Nil

Engine in-flight shutdown, 185 km south of Karratha, Western Australia, on 6 September 2006, VH-NXI, Boeing 717-200

Summary

On 6 September 2006, a Boeing Co 717-200 (717) aircraft, registered VH-NXI, departed Perth, WA on a scheduled passenger service to Karratha. Approximately 100 NM (185 km) from Karratha, there was an automated thrust reduction, and the aircraft commenced the descent into Karratha.

Shortly after leaving the top of descent, the flight crew observed that the right engine had failed. During the completion of the relevant non-normal checklist items, the crew noticed that the main fuel switch for the right engine was selected to OFF. The engine failure checklist was carried out and a successful restart made as the aircraft continued to Karratha.

An examination of the throttle module and main fuel switches by the aircraft operator found no fault with their operation.

As a result of this incident, the aircraft operator issued a Safety Alert to all of its 717 operating crew advising of the possibility of selecting the aircraft's main fuel switches to ON without their correctly engaging the locking detent. That alert also warned flight crew of the possibility of inadvertent in-flight selection of the switches to OFF by catching wristbands or long sleeve shirt cuffs. In addition, flight crew were advised to not pass technical manuals or other similar items across the throttle quadrant in the vicinity of the main fuel switches.

The operator is evaluating the possible fitment of a physical guard to protect the main fuel switches against their inadvertent unlock from the ON position.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200605274
Occurrence date 06/09/2006
Location Enroute Perth to Karratha
State Western Australia
Report release date 17/12/2007
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 717
Registration VH-NXI
Serial number 55054
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Perth, WA
Destination Karratha, WA
Damage Nil

Engine in-flight shutdown, Cessna 441, VH-LBA

Summary

On 27 February 2006, at approximately 1427 Western Standard Time, the Cessna Aircraft Company 441 aircraft, registered VH-LBA, was being operated on a charter flight with two pilots and seven passengers from Perth to Mount Weld, WA. During cruise, at Flight Level (FL) 250, the left engine shut down. The crew actioned the 'engine securing phase one checks' from the quick reference handbook and declared a PAN. They then requested and received a clearance to descend to FL200. The crew then actioned the engine restart procedures, successfully restarting the left engine. Air Traffic Control was notified of normal operations and the flight continued to Mount Weld.

Following the occurrence, the flight crew reported that, prior to the engine shutdown, the pilot in command (PIC) had inadvertently depressed the left engine STOP button.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200601053
Occurrence date 27/02/2006
Location 40km NW Callion
State Western Australia
Report release date 29/09/2006
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Cessna Aircraft Company
Model 441
Registration VH-LBA
Serial number 4410042
Sector Turboprop
Operation type Charter
Departure point Perth, WA
Destination Mount Weld, WA
Damage Nil

de Havilland Canada DHC-8-201, VH-TQG

Safety Action

Local safety action

As a result of this occurrence, on 2 February 2002, the operator issued Flight Operations Standing Order 132/01 requiring flight crews to conduct the ORIGINATING CHECKLIST prior to flight following any engineering actions.

Significant Factors

  1. Maintenance personnel did not ensure the return to service of the main landing gear system due to task interruption.
  2. The flight crew did not confirm the main landing gear inhibit switch position to prepare the aircraft for flight following maintenance.



 

Analysis

While maintenance personnel were completing their checks of the aircraft following maintenance, the flight crew interrupted the task in order to expedite the flight. That resulted in the position of the main landing gear inhibit switch not being verified by maintenance personnel.

When the flight crew prepared the aircraft for flight, they did not confirm the position of the main landing gear inhibit switch.

When the flight crew selected the landing gear to the down position (extended), the landing gear inhibit switch was in the INHIBIT position, thereby preventing normal extension. No caution advisories were illuminated. Had they been illuminated, the crew would have been directed to the ALTERNATE LANDING GEAR EXTENSION/ LANDING GEAR MALFUNCTION checklist and that would have led them to check the inhibit switch for position.

The crew was aware that on the previous flight, the aircraft had sustained a low-pressure indication of the number 2 hydraulic system. As the extension of the landing gear was dependent on the number 2 hydraulic system being operational, the flight crew possibly considered the gear problem was related to the previous number 2 hydraulic system pressure anomaly and more serious in nature. Upon arriving overhead Lord Howe Island, the flight crew had limited time to troubleshoot the landing gear problem as the aircraft fuel reserves would have been minimal, and any delays in landing would have compromised fuel reserves required for a safe return to the mainland.

Summary

The DHC-8-201 (Dash 8) aircraft was being operated on a scheduled passenger service from Sydney to Lord Howe Island. Overhead Lord Howe Island, when the flight crew was preparing for landing, the main landing gear failed to extend following normal selection. The crew then broadcast a PAN (radio code indicating uncertainty or alert), notified air traffic services (ATS) of a main landing gear problem, and requested a diversion to Port Macquarie. Radio transmissions between the aircraft and ATS were intermittent and radio relays from other aircraft in the area were employed. The request for diversion was granted and the aircraft tracked, first for Coffs Harbour, then Port Macquarie while the crew reassessed their fuel reserves. Enroute to Port Macquarie, the flight crew estimated that there was sufficient fuel on board for a diversion to Sydney, so they requested and received a clearance to track direct to Sydney.

Enroute to Sydney, when within very high frequency radio range, the flight crew contacted the operator on the company radio frequency and attempted to troubleshoot the main landing gear anomaly. Maintenance personnel suggested a check of the position of the landing gear inhibit switch. The switch was found to be in the INHIBIT position, rendering the gear unable to extend. The flight crew repositioned the switch to the NORMAL position and normal landing gear operation resumed. The aircraft continued to Sydney and completed an uneventful landing.

Prior to the flight, maintenance personnel replaced contact pins on the main hydraulic pressure transmitter connector to resolve a number 2 hydraulic system low pressure indication. During that maintenance, the landing gear inhibit switch had been placed in the INHIBIT position. Following maintenance, the maintenance engineers completed a hydraulic system operational check to return the aircraft to flight status. The check did not include a cycling of the main landing gear system, nor was there a requirement to do so. The number 2 hydraulic system retracted and extended the main landing gear.

Landing gear inhibit switch

The two-position (NORMAL and INHIBIT) landing gear inhibit switch was guarded (plastic cover to confirm position) to the NORMAL (OFF) position. The INHIBIT position provided an open electrical circuit to the landing gear down solenoid of the gear selector valve, preventing normal operation of the gear and also preventing illumination of the LDG GEAR INOP caution advisory light. Selecting the landing gear inhibit switch to the INHIBIT position idled the normal landing gear extension system actuators to ensure unhindered operation during alternate extension. Alternate extension of the landing gear used the freefall characteristics of the landing gear, and was used for emergency extension of the gear. The landing gear inhibit switch was also selected in flight crew training to provide the crew with realistic practice in using the alternate landing gear extension system.

Aircraft return to service and flight crew checklists

The operator reported that the maintenance procedures for returning the aircraft to service after maintenance included a requirement to check the landing gear inhibit switch position. They reported that the post-maintenance checks were not thoroughly completed because the maintenance personnel were interrupted by the flight crew during the task.

The operator checklists for the aircraft type were required to be conducted using the challenge and response method. The aircraft manufacturer's NORMAL PROCEDURES checklist, required that the landing gear inhibit switch was checked for selection to the NORMAL position. The operator's Civil Aviation Safety Authority approved ORIGINATING BEFORE START/ BEFORE START and NORMAL (originating) checklists included a check to confirm that the landing gear inhibit switch was in the NORMAL position. The BEFORE START checklist used by the crew, did not have such a requirement. The operator required that the ORIGINATING BEFORE START/ BEFORE START checklist be actioned following maintenance, other than ramp activity, of the aircraft. Under existing requirements, the ORIGINATING BEFORE START/ BEFORE START checklist was not required to be completed by the flight crew prior to take-off.

The manufacturers ALTERNATE LANDING GEAR EXTENSION/ LANDING GEAR MALFUNCTION (with illumination of landing gear inoperative caution light or loss of number 2 hydraulic system pressure) checklist included a check of the landing gear inhibit switch for the INHIBIT position. That checklist was not actioned as the landing gear inoperative caution light did not illuminate, nor was there a loss of number-2 hydraulic system pressure indicated during the flight. The operator reported that the crew decision to not use the alternate landing gear extension system once overhead Lord Howe Island was based on operational considerations.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200105743
Occurrence date 06/12/2001
Location Lord Howe Island, (NDB)
State New South Wales
Report release date 05/08/2002
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer De Havilland Canada/De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Model DHC-8
Registration VH-TQG
Serial number 430
Sector Turboprop
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Sydney, NSW
Destination Lord Howe Island, NSW
Damage Nil

Beech Aircraft Corp 200, VH-SWP

Safety Action

ATSB safety action

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into a Beechcraft King Air 200 depressurisation incident, BO/199902928, issued three recommendations on the subject of cabin alert aural warning systems. The final report contained an additional recommendation on the same subject. Recommendation R20000288 stated:

"The ATSB therefore recommends that CASA mandate the fitment of aural warnings to operate in conjunction with the cabin altitude alert warning systems on all Beechcraft Super King Air and other applicable aircraft".

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority's response dated 2 February 2001 stated:

"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority accepts this recommendation and will move to prepare a regulatory amendment to make it mandatory for pressurised aircraft to have aural cabin altitude alert warning systems. This amendment will follow the normal regulatory development process which, in the first instance, will lead to the circulation of a Discussion Paper. It is anticipated that the paper will be released this month".

On the 2 February 2001, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) also issued a Draft Discussion Paper, DP 0102CS, to the Australian aviation industry. The discussion paper was titled Proposal for Aural Warning to Operate With Cabin Altitude Alert Warning Systems. The discussion paper indicated that it was CASA's preferred option to mandate requirements to modify the aircraft concerned to install an audible warning to complement the existing cabin altitude alert warning system. Responses to that paper were to be provided to CASA by the 12 March 2001.

In April 2002 CASA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on the fitment of aural warnings to pressurised jet and turboprop aircraft.

Investigation report BO/199902928 and the resultant recommendations are available on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's Website, www.atsb.gov.au or from the Bureau on request.

Local safety action

The operator conducted its own investigation into the issues surrounding this incident. As a result of that investigation a number of changes have been made to the company's operational procedures. Those include a reassessment of company pilot training and check-to-line requirements. Greater emphasis is now being placed on adherence to checklists and occupational health and safety issues relating to operations in hot and humid environments.

The operator actively commenced correspondence with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to enable the re-installation of the aural warning device kits. On the 15 January 2002, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority responded to the request. The response indicated that the operator could manufacture the system under the operator's "current certificate of approval, as manufacture in the course of aircraft maintenance". The CASA letter stated:

"Following a review of matters associated with the original warning kits and their installation, it is considered there are a number of matters you need to address to accomplish these modifications, they are:

"1.The draft NPRM 0116CS "Proposal for Aural Warning to Operate with Cabin Altitude Warning Systems" should be considered as much as possible, to avoid having to make future design changes to the system.

"2. A design advice on the modification should be submitted to CASA by the CAR35 Authorised Person to save possible rework. It would be expected that there would be a FAR 23.1309 hazard analysis carried out on the system as part of the design justification.

"3. The design needs to incorporate a backup sensor for cabin pressure in addition to the basic sensor fitted. Any failure in the backup system should not disable the warning from the prime system and vice versa. (ie FAR 23.1309 analysis)

"4. The design will call up parts and components by specification for installation in the modification."

On the 20 February 2002, the operator advised the ATSB that it had commissioned a CAR 35 engineer to draft a proposal for the design and approval of audible warning devices using the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's guidelines. Once that has been accomplished and a CAR 35 Engineering Order has been raised, the devices will be manufactured by a sub-contractor and installed in the operator's fleet of King Air aircraft.

Significant Factors

  1. The pilot did not complete the Pre Take Off and After Take Off cabin pressurisation checks.
  2. The pilot became pre-occupied with programming the GPS after receiving a track change instruction.
  3. The aircraft was allowed to climb above 10,000 ft in an unpressurised state.
  4. The effectiveness of the aircraft's cockpit warning system was reduced by the operator's practice of allowing postponement of the After Take Off check.

Analysis

Some vital checklist actions from the PRE TAKE OFF checklist and the AFTER TAKE OFF checklist were not completed by the pilot. Oppressively hot and humid conditions on the ground would have been very uncomfortable and likely to encourage the pilot to hasten his departure. Any haste during departure would have increased the risk of omitting a checklist item.

The non-standard clearance instruction, received soon after take-off, required re-programming of the GPS. That action captured his attention during the climb, and distracted the pilot from performing parts of the AFTER TAKE OFF checklist and the Transition Altitude Procedure.

The pilot had expected the routine illumination of the green auto feather advisory annunciators during the take-off and for part of the climb. Consequently, he did not identify that additional green annunciators, in the form of the bleed air off indications, were illuminated.

The pilot only noticed that the cabin altitude warning lights were illuminated after the flight nurse had alerted him to the automatic deployment of the passenger oxygen masks. Because of the separate pressure switches involved, it is possible that this deployment occurred slightly before the cabin altitude pressure warning. Alternatively, or in addition, the sun's relative position to the aircraft may have partially occluded the master warning light, making it difficult for the pilot to detect. The inclusion of an aural warning to operate in conjunction with the visual cabin altitude warning annunciator would have provided the pilot with an additional warning during a period of high workload. Desirably, the aural warning would be triggered by a different pressure switch than the visual warning.

The operator's instruction that permitted completion of the AFTER TAKE OFF check "as workload permits", allowed for postponement of a critical check on cabin pressurisation until well above 10,000 ft. Postponement of the AFTER TAKE OFF check also maintained the Auto Feather in an active state, and kept the green annunciator lights illuminated.

The pilot chose not to put on the oxygen mask, as required by the operator's Emergency Procedures, when alerted to the lack of pressurisation. That action resulted in a risk of the pilot suffering from hypoxia had the aircraft continued to climb in an unpressurised state.

Summary

The Beechcraft Super King Air 200 aircraft had arrived at Timber Creek NT to conduct an aeromedical flight to Tindal NT. The aircraft had the pilot, a flight nurse and one patient on board.

While on the ground at Timber Creek, the environment had been oppressively hot. Both the pilot and flight nurse reported feeling extremely uncomfortable and had both been perspiring profusely. The aircraft's air conditioning system was not operating properly and had offered little respite from the conditions, either on the ground or in the air. Due to the type of injuries that the patient had suffered, the flight nurse had requested that the pilot maintain "sea level" cabin pressure for the return flight. The flight nurse had also fitted an oxygen mask to the patient. The pilot recalled setting the pressurisation controls to suit the request from the flight nurse.

On the inbound flight, the pilot had been advised by Air Traffic Control to expect a non-standard clearance for the return flight due to RAAF aircraft activity in the area.

Following take-off, at about 2,000 ft, the air traffic controller instructed the pilot to intercept the 173 radial at 120 NM from Tindal, and then to track along that radial to Tindal. That had been necessary to avoid the now active Military restricted area R248(B). The pilot reported that he had then become occupied with re-programming the aircraft's Global Positioning System (GPS). During the climb to the cleared level, Flight Level 130, the pilot reported that he believed that he had actioned all the required checklist items.

As the aircraft climbed through FL125, the flight nurse noticed that the passenger oxygen masks had deployed and conveyed that fact to the pilot. The pilot was unaware of the deployment and had immediately turned around to assess the situation. When he turned his attention back to the instrument panel, the pilot noticed that the cabin ALT WARN caption positioned on the glare-shield mounted Master Warning panel was illuminated. Both Master Warning captions were also flashing. The pilot then contacted Air Traffic Control and received a clearance for an immediate descent to 10,000 ft.

The flight nurse donned the nearest available passenger oxygen mask and re-checked the flow of supplemental oxygen to the oxygen mask worn by the patient. The pilot did not don an oxygen mask during the incident.

Once established at 10,000 ft, the pilot discovered that both the left and right bleed air OFF green advisory annunciators were illuminated, and that both bleed air switches were in the ENVIR OFF position. In that position, no bleed air was available for aircraft pressurisation. The pilot had then selected both bleed air switches to OPEN, and restored normal pressurisation.

The flight was then continued to Tindal at the lower altitude.

The pilot was appropriately licensed for the flight and had approximately 3,600 hours total flying experience, of which 90 hours were on King Air 200 aircraft, with about 50 hours as pilot in command.

The Operator's Pre-Take Off Procedures required the bleed air to be selected to ON (OPEN). When the three-position bleed air switches were selected to EVIR OFF or INST & ENVIR OFF, a green advisory light L or R BLEED AIR OFF annunciator was illuminated. The pilot reported that he could not remember having selected the switches to OPEN prior to take-off.

The pilot indicated that he had not noticed the green L or R BLEED AIR OFF annunciators during the climb. He reported that that was partly due to him being accustomed to seeing the green L and R AUTOFEATHER advisory captions illuminated on the lower centre instrument console during the take-off. The pilot was also unsure if the ALT WARN and Master Warning caption had been illuminated prior to him being aware of the passenger oxygen mask deployment.

The operator's After Take Off Procedure included a requirement to turn the Auto Feather "OFF not below 1500ft". The pilot reported that the task was often left until after the transition altitude, when the cockpit routine was "less busy". That meant that the green L or R AUTOFEATHER advisory captions would remain illuminated until the checklist was completed, sometimes up to FL 150. The operator's After Take Off Procedure included a note, which indicated that the checklist only needed to be completed when workload permitted.

The After Take Off Procedures also required the pressurisation to be checked. That task involved the pilot checking that the bleed air valve switches were OPEN (up) position. The pressurisation gauges were also to be checked to ensure that the aircraft was pressurising normally. The Transition Altitude Procedures stated that "pressurisation checks should be made at least every 10,000 ft during climb and again when stabilised in the cruise".

The operator's Phase One Emergency Procedures, for a loss of pressurisation with the cabin altitude above 10,000 ft, directed the pilot to don the crew oxygen mask. The pilot reported that he had not performed that task as he had quickly descended the aircraft to 10,000 ft.

The aircraft's air conditioning system had a history of operating problems, with six instances of maintenance recorded since January 2001. The flight nurse said that the air conditioning system had been malfunctioning for some time prior to the incident, and that the aircraft had been to Darwin several times for repair. The crew also indicated that on the flight from Tindal to Timber Creek the interior of the aircraft had been hotter than normal and that it had not operated at all on the incident flight.

The maintenance record entry following the flight indicated that the air conditioning system high-pressure switch had tripped. Maintenance troubleshooting found that the system gas pressure was incorrect, and the pressure had been subsequently adjusted.

The aircraft's cabin altitude warning system and the passenger emergency oxygen mask system were both designed to operate at a cabin pressure altitude of 12,500 ft. The two systems were separate and operated in response to electrical signals received from individual pressure switches. The cabin altitude warning system illuminated both the glare-shield mounted flashing red Master Warning annunciators and the red ALT WARN annunciators on the warning annunciator panel. The passenger emergency oxygen mask deployment system activated a green PASS OXY ON annunciator on the aircraft's Caution/Advisory panel.

The operator had installed an aural warning device that operated in conjunction with the cabin altitude warning annunciator, into this aircraft on the 30 November 2000. That device had been installed under a CAR 35 engineering approval. On the 23 February 2001, following an instruction from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that the device had to be removed because it had not been manufactured in accordance with current legislation, the unit was removed from the aircraft.

The sun's azimuth was 282 degrees true, which meant that the sun's light came from behind and to the left of the aircraft. The sunlight glare from the West may have occluded the red master warning and the altitude alert on the pilot's side and centre of the instrument panel glareshield.

A text by Thomas Turner, titled "Checklists & Compliance", written on the use of checklists in aircraft operations, pointed out the problem with operating equipment such as global positioning system units in "altitude critical areas". Such areas were defined as within 1,000 ft of the ground or within 1,000 ft of levelling off from a climb or descent. The textbook went on to say "Concentrate on what it takes to establish the new level flight attitude, trim the aircraft for level flight, and check to make sure critical items are complete before turning to less crucial tasks".

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority booklet "The Global Positioning System" stated that:

"GPS may relieve the mental task of computing the aircraft's position and speed in relation to maps of the terrain, but it may increase the workload of programming and accessing the desired information from the machine and interpreting it.

"Piloting an aircraft requires continuous monitoring and reacting to events both inside and outside the cockpit.

"The amount of information we can deal with at any one time is limited....

"Don't allow the operation of the GPS to interfere with your primary task of flying the aircraft".

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200105188
Occurrence date 24/10/2001
Location 22 km SSE Timber Creek Aero.
State Northern Territory
Report release date 17/05/2002
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Incorrect configuration
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Beech Aircraft Corp
Model 200
Registration VH-SWP
Serial number BB-529
Sector Turboprop
Operation type Aerial Work
Departure point Timber Creek, NT
Destination Tindall, NT
Damage Nil