Recce

Boeing don’t think so, nor does the US Air Force, the Royal Air Force or for that matter any of the world’s airlines who operate multi engine jets. In fact Boeing and two interna- tionally respected airlines discovered to their horror somet three decades ago that this was not a procedure to be actually undertaken in a live aircraft, arguing logically that that is what simulators were for, claiming rightly that more four engined aircraft had been lost in training for this emergency than had ever been lost due to a true double asymmetric failure.

That the RAAF lost what is an example of the world’s safest jetliner performing a very dubious manoeuvre that has understandably been outlawed by almost every major operator including the aircraft’s manufacturer is something for serious concern. More importantly the RAAF has gone to ground on the entire 707 affair and sadly gone into 110% defensive mode as a result.

Considering that in just the past two years there have been 14 major ADF aircraft accidents that claimed the lives of 23 airmen, it isn’t too much to expect that those in command react just a little more realistically to what is occurring about them. We would think so but obviously such is not the case.

Consider then that (as originally highlighted in July’s excellent ABC 4 Corners programme) our Hercules and Orions are still performing double asymmetric manouevres as an ops normal training procedure. Consider also that the RAAF almost lost an example of both (and did lose an Orion for different reasons) in the past year and you would rightly wonder just why this dubious practice is being persisted with in the face of enormous evidence highlighting the foolhardiness of same. As with Boeing, Lockheed also do not promote the use of this manoeuvre in live aircraft claiming rightly that there has never been a Hercules lost through actual dual one-wing engine failure whilst several have been lost in training for such an unlikely occurrence.

The place to practice all such eventualities is of course the simulator. The RAAF’s 707 and C-130E simulators are fairly basic though the essential procedures needed to hone emergency procedures can still be met with these existing units. The C-1301 and P-3 simulators are more advanced though in light of the constant cutbacks in flying hours (fast jet pilots from around 240hrs pa to a bare 170 in less than a decade), is it not unreasonable for some additional resources to be inves- ted in modern generation state of the art simulators so that crews can be fully trained in all aspects of emergency inflight procedures without having to obviously endanger the aircraft or for that matter those residing below its flightpath.

Air Force top brass naturally say that this isn’t the ‘real. thing’ and doesn’t have the same impact on a pilot if he or she gets it wrong (like they survive!). Perhaps true on some occasions but as long understood and accepted by every airline the world over (who combined log a thousand more hours per day than the RAAF logs in a year in weather. conditions that wisely ground our aviators) there is absolutely nothing wrong with simulator training.

Of course its doesn’t have the same macho feel about it and sadly this is perhaps where the problem lies. For decades old psychological reasons it’s simply not considered a viable. alternative despite what the aircraft’s manufacturer, its biggest single operator and the entire world airline community think. The Defence bureaucracy knows best and that is that- end of story! Australian Aviation can understand the anguish and indeed anger that the wives and friends of those five airmen aboard the 707 are feeling in view of the bureaucratic smoke-screen that has emerged since the disaster.

If they were to take legal action against the Commonwealth for what we non lawyers would term ‘sheer stupidity’ then we wouldn’t be surprised. It would appear, at least on the surface, that they indeed have grounds to feel aggrieved.

Congratulations ASTA

In these bleak times it is very refreshing to be able to highlight an area of Australian expertise that is doing very nicely on the world stage.

Justifiably the target for a plethora of rude jibes for many years, the old Government Aircraft Factories, long considered as aviation’s answer to the sheltered workshop, has in recent years been transformed into a remarkable success story in the form of Aerospace Technologies of Australia.

ASTA is nothing like its GAF forebear whilst the shining light within the now comprehensively restructured ASTA is its Aircraft Services division. It was thus with great pride that Australian Aviation learnt last month in discussions with senior executives of the highly respected maintenance arm of Cathay Pacific Airways, HAECO, that ASTAAS was not only the largest centre of Boeing 747 ageing airframe heavy maintenance in the world but also was the most productive. HAECO in short as more than surprised by what capabilities ASTA as a whole could offer when they first visited the Melbourne aerospace concern a few years back. So impressed that they then went on to take a 29% shareholding in Avalon based ASTAAS with an option to later take this to 50%.

An endorsement by what is one of the world’s most capable and respected maintenance facilities is good news indeed for ASTA and highlights just what can be done in Australia if we set our minds to the task.

A major restructuring has taken a union dominated, hopelessly managed Dickensian factory into the nineties as a world leader in its field. Congratulations to all at ASTA and in particular their rapidly expanding Aircraft Services. Division.