The LTN-101 air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) model had a demonstrated susceptibility to single event effects (SEE). The consideration of SEE during the design process was consistent with industry practice at the time the unit was developed, and the overall fault rates of the ADIRU were within the relevant design objectives.
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 had no formalised policy in place to provide clear guidance to its stevedoring employees about where they could or could not work on a ship when cargo was being loaded or discharged.
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.
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.
Patrick Terminals’ hazard identification process had not identified the dangers of working near or under containers being loaded.
The existing take-off certification standards, which were based on the attainment of the take-off reference speeds, and flight crew training that was based on monitoring of and responding to those speeds, did not provide crews a means to detect degraded take-off acceleration.
The operator’s training and processes in place to enable flight crew to manage distractions during the pre-departure phase did not minimise the effect of distraction during safety critical tasks.
A number of operators of the PZL M-18 Dromader aircraft had not applied the appropriate service life factors to the aircraft’s time in service for operations conducted with take-off weights greater than 4,700 kg, as required by the aircraft’s service documentation. Hence the operators could not be assured that their aircraft were within their safe service life.
The lack of a designated position in the pre-flight documentation to record the green dot speed precipitated a number of informal methods of recording that value, lessening the effectiveness of the green dot check within the loadsheet confirmation procedure.
The failure of the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) rack during the tail strike prevented the DFDR from recording subsequent flight parameters.
Operation of the M-18A in accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Authority exemptions EX56/07 and EX09/07 at weights in excess of the basic Aircraft Flight Manual maximum take-off weight (MTOW), up to the MTOW listed on the Type Certificate Data Sheet, may not provide the same level of safety intended by the manufacturer when including that weight on the Type Certificate.
The lack of a requirement for a charter-specific risk assessment in this case meant that the risks associated with the charter were not adequately addressed.
The procedural and guidance framework for commercial balloon operations generally, did not provide a high level of assurance in regard to the safe conduct of low flying.
A number of non-cold rolled bolts were installed on PT6A-67 series engines during manufacture and overhaul
The Society of Automotive Engineers specification AS7477 was ambiguous in relation to the requirement to cold roll the head-to-shank fillet radius of MS9490-34 bolts.
The instructions that were emailed to Mimasaka’s master by NYK-Hinode Line did not provide the crew with proper guidance about how to stow and secure the packs of timber veneer on deck.
Mimasaka’s cargo securing manual did not contain any information relating to the stowage and securing of timber veneer.
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority had not inspected the packs of veneer to establish whether Ta Ann Tasmania was packaging the veneer in line with the recommendations contained in section 2.3 of Appendix A of the International Maritime Organization’s Code of Safe Practice for Ships Carrying Timber Deck Cargo.
Ta Ann Tasmania did not follow the recommendations contained in section 2.3 of Appendix A of the International Maritime Organization’s Code of Safe Practice for Ships Carrying Timber Deck Cargo when they packaged the timber veneer for shipment by sea.
