Gents, many thanks for these very interesting posts.  It would be fascinating to learn the exact chain of events, conditions and basis for the decisions made, if that is something that is ever made public.

Just  to add  to this  thread  there an investigation on the  way  on  why  it  made  an emergency landing, so hopefully  it  will come  out  than

 

 

if that is something that is ever made public.

 

I that this issue would be swept under the rug frankly. I've heard stories in the news (a cracked windshield on an AWE A320 and the captain of an ASA 737 becoming incapacitated) that I can't find reports on. I think this is one of those sweep-it-under-the-rug moments.

I that this issue would be swept under the rug frankly. I've heard stories in the news (a cracked windshield on an AWE A320 and the captain of an ASA 737 becoming incapacitated) that I can't find reports on. I think this is one of those sweep-it-under-the-rug moments.

 

Keep in mind that these are two different regulatory agencies, and associated investigations.  The FAA and NTSB aren't going to be looking into Australian events.  I wouldn't use the experience with one as a gauge for the other.

 

As for "sweeping it under the rug," I think it's more of an issue of you not having access to the data.  You could FOIA it, but it's not worth the cost.  You can pull some of it from the NTSB accident database.  It's not all going to be hanging out on Google.  Cracked windows don't always get reported (they're not on the list).  Crew incapacitation is required to be reported under 830.5, however, but only as incident status.

 

An additional resource would be the NASA ASRS.

It really annoys me when people forget there is a world outside North America, the FAA and NTSB!

 

As Kyle has pointed out, the NTSB are responsible for investigations on US soil only. They may be invited to assist if the airframe involved is US manufactured and suspected of mechanical infidelity, or the airframe is on the US register.

 

The ATSB will be investigating this incident, as it's an Australian carrier in Australian airspace.

 

 

It really annoys me when people forget there is a world outside North America, the FAA and NTSB!

 

To be fair, in another forum, my signature contains:

The content of this post, unless expressly written, refers only to those procedures in the United States of America, following the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations thereof.

 

As much as I acknowledge that other places still exist, it's hard enough to keep up with the regs of one country, much less all the rest.  So, in order to make sure my comments don't get mistaken for worldwide, I added that in there.  Around here, I just try to remember to mention it.

 

 

captain of an ASA 737 becoming incapacitated

 

I think I found it.  Search the NTSB database for ANC09IA015.

Here's a clip of a CATIII landing arriving and taxiing at Milano Malpensa

I love comments like "Taxiway *** "Should be!!!!" on the left!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g185mUtaiSU

Perhaps I could have been clearer in my above post. I really meant the Australian equivalent to the FAA and NTSB...

To be fair, in another forum, my signature contains:

The content of this post, unless expressly written, refers only to those procedures in the United States of America, following the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations thereof.

 

As much as I acknowledge that other places still exist, it's hard enough to keep up with the regs of one country, much less all the rest.  So, in order to make sure my comments don't get mistaken for worldwide, I added that in there.

 

My post wasn't aimed at you Kyle ^_^, you've not annoyed me (yet lol). I just get infuriated when people (predominately from the USA it has to be said) expect US organisations and procedures to apply everywhere! This strikes me as a bit odd, given it's about the only country in the world still using imperial measurements...

 

I'll give you an example, someone recently said "The QNH acronym is almost never used on the radio" and presented that as a fact, whereas the reality is it's used on the radio just about everywhere except the US.

 

I get the feeling (which might not be true) that if I said "I can't find the AAIB report in to US Airways 1549" I'd have people jumping all over me saying I needed the NTSB, but the reverse never seems to apply.

 

Maybe I have some kind of inferiority complex? :lol: Perhaps I'm just bitter; as a controller on several ATC networks, I've steadily got annoyed with pilots who readback "London Center" or "climb 1-1, 11000" when I told them "London Control, climb FL110"! I felt like they were telling me I was wrong and trying to correct me.

 

Anyway I am dragging this thread off topic, so I'll stumm [/vent]

My post wasn't aimed at you Kyle

 

Figured it wasn't, but felt like commenting on my own forum CYA to avoid being a target - haha.

Maybe I have some kind of inferiority complex? Perhaps I'm just bitter; as a controller on several ATC networks, I've steadily got annoyed with pilots who readback "London Center" or "climb 1-1, 11000" when I told them "London Control, climb FL110"! I felt like they were telling me I was wrong and trying to correct me.

 

You should've heard me yesterday. I'm pretty sure I got called everything but Potomac Approach... DCA approach, Washington Control, Washington Approach, Reagan Approach, and on and on...

 

I feel your pain.

 

For anyone reading this tangent, a surefire way to figure out the name if you didn't hear it, or forgot it: just say the facility type. We're required to identify ourselves on first contact anyway:

"United 855, contact Potomac Approach on 119.85."

"Approach on 119.85, United 855." (and suddenly, you forget, or didn't hear the 'Potomac' part)

----------

"Approach, United 855, 15,000 for 10,000."

"United 855, Potomac Approach, roger." (and now you know and didn't sound like an idiot on the radio)

 

 

 

Right...so back to the topic... :ph34r:

 

 

I think I found it. Search the NTSB database for ANC09IA015.

 

Thought he was referencing this one:

 

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45d14284&opt=0

Thought he was referencing this one:

 

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45d14284&opt=0

 

Good catch.  I can't find anything about it in ASRS/NTSB, but I didn't really look too intensely.

Perhaps I could have been clearer in my above post. I really meant the Australian equivalent to the FAA and NTSB...

So now  your  saying the  Australian  version is  going to sweep it under the rug?

Not sure there has been any history of the ATSB sweeping a commercial airliner incident under the rug before.
Probably the only issue has been criticism of CASA for either enforcing unduly or not enforcing issues.

Perhaps someone could think of an example.

And no, I don't think the NTSB, Boeing or FAA will be required, unless equipment failure is somehow implicated.
Yes, there are definitely countries and regulatory bodies outside the USA.

 

As to the original question, here is where the 'rug sweeping' will update, as the investigation progresses:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100.aspx

Here's a clip of a CATIII landing arriving and taxiing at Milano Malpensa

I love comments like "Taxiway *** "Should be!!!!" on the left!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g185mUtaiSU

 

That is an amazing video - terrifying!