Sign Up | Login | -- DEV DB --

VH-TQL Australian Aircraft Registration Details

Here are the Australian aviation rego search results for 'VH-TQL'.
The aircraft registration database was last refreshed from the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on 26/May/2020

Member Comments

Share your knowledge and experience of this aircraft.

1 comment for VH-TQL below

Other Recent Aircraft Comments

View all recent comments

Photos of VH-TQL

Members can upload photos of this aircraft.

Sign In or Sign Up NOW for a free RegoSearch account.

Aircraft Type

BOMBARDIER INC
DHC-8-315
603

Holder/Operator

EASTERN AUSTRALIA AIRLINES PTY. LIMITED
C Wing Level 1 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT, NSW, 2020
Australia
22 July 2004

Airframe

2004
Canada
22 July 2004
Power Driven Aeroplane

Engines

2
PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA
Turboprop
PW123E
Kerosene

Propeller

HAMILTON STANDARD
14SF-15

Certification

Active (Transport)

Comments

Dasher
28th May 2012 11:07:55 AM
The ATSB has released its investigation report into the

Stall warning device event - Bombardier Inc DHC-8-315, VH-TQL, Sydney Airport, NSW, 1 March 2011

On approach to Sydney Airport, runway 16 left (16L), a QantasLink aircraftâs stickshaker stall warning was activated at about the final approach fix (FAF).

The following findings are made with respect to the stall warning device event:
⢠The stickshaker system activated as a result of the increased reference speed switch being in the ON position, the associated computed reference speed being reached, and the aircraft not being configured in accordance with standard operating procedures.

⢠A lack of communication and ineffective crew resource management between the flight crew and non-adherence to the operatorâs standard operating procedures adversely affected crew actions and coordination.

⢠Due to time pressure, inadequate crew resource management and the increased workload of both flight crew, the RNAV approach was not flown in accordance with standard operating procedures.

Each factor that contributed to the occurrence resulted from individual actions or was specific to the occurrence. The ATSB is satisfied that none of these safety factors indicate a need for systemic action to change existing risk controls. Nevertheless, the operator undertook a number of safety actions to minimise the risk of a recurrence.

-----------------------
Dasher was here....