Could also be that the impact caused some corruption to the current file, which makes it impossible to see and/or download using the normal tools. It could potentially be accessed by the manufacturer if critical.
Matt On 26/04/2012, at 13:59 , Matthew Scutter wrote: > Most GPS loggers begin the trace only after a certain duration of > movement above a certain speed. > It's also possible it bunches a number of points to write out together > every x minutes - common behaviour in embedded devices to extend their > working life. If the power was cut before it was written out, you'd > have nothing. > > Have someone unplug it on climb out and see what happens? > > -Matthew > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Matt, >> Some good stuff there. Another thing that can work against a pilot is >> getting QNE and QNH confused - ie the pilot thinks he is higher than he >> actually is. I suspect that this has been a contributing factor in at least >> a couple of fatalities over the years. >> >> In the Ararat case the glider had a working flarm. My understanding is that >> the previous flights (on the day and earlier), were available, from the >> flarm after the crash, but for some reason a trace could not be recovered >> for the fatal flight. There is some conjecture that this may have been >> something inherent in flarm. There is no reason to suspect that the >> electrics in the glider had not been switched on for the last flight. For >> the sake of argument, let us assume that the flarm was powered up about 2 >> minutes before the all-out call, and the flight lasted 2 minutes, my maths >> says that there should have been about 60 recorded points (@ 4 sec >> intervals) available prior to impact, and maybe the flarm should have kept >> logging after the impact?? It was noted that the glider batteries were >> still in position and intact. >> >> Anyone got any thoughts as to why nothing was recorded? >> >> Gary >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Matt Gage >> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. >> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:34 AM >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Site/accident >> >> Gary, >> >> I totally agree with you sentiments and from what you posted earlier, I >> suspect that there would be no way of establishing the true cause of this >> accident, so any report would be unlikely to go beyond what you already >> posted - unless a mechanical failure was detected ! >> >> I've always thought that the reports I've seen on spinning accidents are >> pretty useless to learn from. They pretty much always start with being too >> slow and turning, and never focus on what led up to this - poor judgement of >> circuit, workload, fatigue, dehydration, other medical issue, instrument >> failure (I know of one such case where the pilot recovered at less than >> 100', hence able to determine this !), distraction (other aircraft, radio >> calls, etc) or a host of other possible out of ordinary events. It is >> impossible to determine which of these was a factor, making anything except >> a brief report useless, sadly making repeats inevitable as we can't train >> out the causes if we don't know what they are. >> >> I don't see what the ATSB would be able to add here. >> >> Having said all that, I have seen logger/flarm traces used on 3 occasions to >> help investigate totally different types of non-fatal accidents. The traces >> made it very clear what had happened and why in 2 of the cases, the 3rd was >> clearly poor judgement and showed actions completely different to what the >> pilot reported, but there was no obvious sign as to what the cause of the >> poor judgement was (although the pilot had spent considerable time above >> 10,000' with no oxygen, so hypoxia or dehydration may have been a factor). >> >> >> Matt >> >> >> On 25/04/2012, at 23:22 , <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, Mike Borgelt in particular, and All, >> >> Very nicely put. >> >> I note in particular your comment "...and the amount of knowledge gained >> from NZ investigations is not significantly higher than here." I suspect >> that you could widen "NZ" to "Worldwide". >> >> At the risk of seeming outrageous, let me say that to the ATSB and its >> previous incarnations, investigating glider accidents is, within the bigger >> picture of accident investigation, "just plain boring". >> >> How so? Let me explain. >> >> Unless I am missing something, there are basically only two factors to any >> gliding accident - mechanical failure, or pilot error( or incapacity). In an >> ultimate analysis, everything can be reduced to these two fundamentals. >> [There is no doubt that these fundamentals also apply to any accident >> scenario where human beings are involved.] >> Some pundit will no doubt be able to quote the "exact" figures for gliding, >> but in gliding accidents MUCH less than 10% of accidents can be attributed >> to mechanical failure. I will leave it to you to work out what the remainder >> is allotted to! ....... However, do not jump to conclusions. In >> (unfortunately far too many cases), WHAT happened is quite easy to >> determine. WHY it happened cannot be determined at all! Nevertheless the >> fundamental premise that I have posited above must apply. >> >> Gliders, in comparison to say modern airliners are relatively simple >> machines - just ask the boys in South Africa who developed the JS1.They are >> reputed to have put in over 70,000 total hours to get to official Type >> Approval! >> >> So, in a few instances of gliding accidents there is a mechanical problem. >> As gliders are such simple machines, any mechanical failure should be >> relatively easy to determine. This does not require the input of the ATSB. >> As Wombat has said, the ATSB generally leaves it to either one of the other >> two entities who CAN legally investigate - the State Police, or the State >> Coroner. >> >> If you are particularly observant, you will note that neither Wombat nor I, >> have mentioned the GFA in this context. Legally they do not have a role. In >> practice they are generally requested to supply expert advice to the >> Investigating Authority. Apart from anything else, this keeps the GFA "in >> the loop". >> >> [It is a digression, but it would seem in fact that these two bodies >> Police/Coroner co-operate. Maybe some legal eagle might be able to explain >> just what are the current arrangements, which may possibly vary from State >> to State. I posit that in theory each one of the 3 entities is able to carry >> out an independent investigation if it so chooses?] >> >> So much for mechanical failures. >> >> What about Pilot Error? >> >> Well pilots have been crashing, and in many cases dying, since man took to >> the air. Every possible means of crashing has been explored from that time >> until now. I suspect that all the possibilities for human error were >> exhausted long ago: Hence the lack of ATSB interest. >> >> As a result of these experiences the GFA produced a Manual of Standard >> Procedures. You are of course perfectly free to ignore the accumulated >> wisdom of ages, as set out in this document and taught by every accredited >> instructor, but you do so at your peril. >> >> Regards, >> Gary >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Mike Cleaver >> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. >> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:40 PM >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Site/accident >> >> John and others >> >> The ATSB has a system for classifying accidents and incidents - see on their >> web site http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/investigation-procedures.aspx and >> http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/investigation-procedures.aspx#fn2 >> - the latter identifies what the various levels of investigation involve in >> terms of ATSB resources. >> >> Sport and recreational aviation accidents - even fatal ones - are almost >> never accorded a classification higher than 4, which means that after the >> recording of various factual information, the investigation is either >> carried out with one or two ATSB investigators or may be referred to another >> agency. In the case of a fatality this is often the police force in the >> State or Territory where the accident occurred - either for potential crime >> investigation or more likely for the Coroner to investigate. The >> Police/Coroner will usually seek the assistance of the GFA in the case of a >> gliding accident, but the GFA generally regards itself as under-resourced to >> carry out aviation accident investigations, as no funding is provided from >> Government sources to train and equip investigators.In any event the funding >> provided by Government to the ATSB is such that most accidents are not >> investigated in any level of detail, unless they involve passenger transport >> operations in large or medium capacity aircraft. The days when ATSB >> investigated sport aviation accidents to any greater extent than this ended >> over 20 years ago, and are not likely to return. >> >> While gliding fatalities are investigated by TAIC in New Zealand, that is >> not the case here, and the amount of knowledge gained from NZ investigations >> is not significantly higher than here. >> >> A further factor that militates against the GFA conducting and publishing >> accident reports is the fact that, unlike Government agencies, the >> investigator may be held personally liable for the way findings are >> reported, and challenged by relatives of the deceased or others who have >> suffered personal or property loss, or by survivors of the event who may >> claim some degree of negligence (read financial compensation for some >> assumed fault by the GFA or its members) or defamation as a consequence of >> the reporting. >> This has the potential to affect all of us, whereas an ATSB investigation is >> rarely handled this way. Note that this is a fact in spite of the >> acknowledged purpose of accident investigations being to prevent recurrences >> and identify procedures or training that may assist in this goal: accident >> investigators do not lay blame for occurrences (and sometimes it is hard to >> read into their reports any reference to even obvious breaches of the law or >> safe operating procedures). >> >> This is why we have to wait so long for a Coroner to produce a report before >> we can make changes to the system, especially where training or procedure >> changes are involved, or airworthiness actions. >> >> Wombat >> >> >> On 25/04/2012 12:09 PM, john.mcfarlane wrote: >> >> I would have thought that this is a mandated reportable incident via the Fed >> Gov body delegated with that authority – ATSB. >> >> Will there be a formal report from the ATSB? >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, 23 April 2012 4:17 >> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Site/accident >> >> Re accident prevention, in this instance we will have to wait on the >> Coroner's report, which I would not expect any time soon. It may be able to >> pinpoint a problem, and if so we - that is the collective we - can then act. >> However I am not holding my breath on this one. >> >> Regards, >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] >> To check or change subscription details, visit: >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
