The operators recurrent simulator training did not address the recovery from a stall or stick shaker activation such that the ongoing competency of their flight crew was not assured.
The operators procedures did not include a validation check of the landing weight generated by the flight management system which resulted in lack of assurance that the approach and landing speeds were valid.
The operator's procedure for confirming the validity of the flight management system generated take-off weight did not place sufficient emphasis on the check against the load sheet.
The current ARTC definition of restricted speed requires considerable judgement on the part of train drivers.
Train drivers receive no formal training with respect to understanding severe weather events, the associated derailment risk and mitigation strategies.
Double stacked container wagons are at particular risk of wind induced roll-over. This is a direct relationship of exposed side area, and was therefore probably exacerbated by out of gauge/high loads on some wagons with a large surface area exposed to the gust front.
The available Cross Crew Qualification and Mixed Fleet Flying guidance did not address how flight crew might form an expectation, or conduct a ‘reasonableness' check, of the speed/weight relationship for their aircraft during takeoff.
Patrick Terminals’ safe work instructions for lashing/unlashing did not specifically cover the recognised safe practices of not working under containers or between moving containers and fixed objects. Consequently, there was a discontinuity between the level of awareness regarding these dangers and the training new employees received during their induction period.
The recognised safe practices of not working under or near a container being loaded is not well reflected in national and international guidance published to assist container terminal operators develop their own safety policies and guidelines.
Patrick Terminals’ risk assessment process for lashing and unlashing operations had not anticipated a fatal accident resulting from being struck by items falling from a portainer or cargo, or from being struck by a moving container. As a result, while the appropriate risk control for this occurrence had been covered during employee training, this was not reinforced in safe work instructions, an important risk control measure.
There has been very little research conducted into the factors influencing passengers’ use of seat belts when the seat-belt sign is not illuminated, and the effectiveness of different techniques to increase the use of seat belts.
For the data-spike failure mode, the built-in test equipment of the LTN 101 air data inertial reference unit was not effective, for air data parameters, in detecting the problem, communicating appropriate fault information, and flagging affected data as invalid.
There was a limitation in the algorithm used by the A330/A340 flight control primary computers (FCPCs) for processing angle of attack (AOA) data. This limitation meant that, in a very specific situation, multiple spikes in AOA from only one of the three ADIRUs could result in a nose-down elevator command.
Patrick Terminals’ hazard identification process had not identified the dangers of working near or under containers being loaded.
One of the aircraft’s three air data inertial reference units (ADIRU 1) exhibited a data-spike failure mode, during which it transmitted a significant amount of incorrect data on air data parameters to other aircraft systems, without flagging that this data was invalid. The invalid data included frequent spikes in angle of attack data. Including the 7 October 2008 occurrence, there have been three occurrences of the same failure mode on LTN-101 ADIRUs, all on A330 aircraft.
In recent years there have been developments in guidance materials for system development processes and research into new approaches for system safety assessments. However, there has been limited research that has systematically evaluated how design engineers and safety analysts conduct their evaluations of systems, and how the design of their tasks, tools, training and guidance material can be improved so that the likelihood of design errors is minimised.
Single event effects (SEE) have the potential to adversely affect avionics systems that have not been specifically designed to be resilient to this hazard. There were no specific certification requirements for SEE, and until recently there was no formal guidance material available for addressing SEE during the design process.
When developing the A330/A340 flight control primary computer software in the early 1990s, the aircraft manufacturer’s system safety assessment and other development processes did not fully consider the potential effects of frequent spikes in the data from an air data inertial reference unit.
Industry practices for tracking faults or performance problems with line-replaceable units are limited, unless the units are removed for examination. Consequently, the manufacturers of aircraft equipment have incomplete information for identifying patterns or trends that can be used to improve the safety, availability or reliability of the units.
