Merged: Norfolk Island ditching

[Andu]

Anyone have any idea when a preliminary report might be issued on this?

The whole thing seems to have gone very quiet and Max Clifford (or his Australian equivalent) is conspicuous by his absence in pushing the pilot(s) into any sort of money-making publicity ventures. For instance, I haven't heard even a whisper about any book deal.

[Capt Claret]

... in pushing the pilot(s) into any sort of money-making publicity ventures.

Not much of a market for "how I sunk an aeroplane".

[Howard Hughes]

Rumour has it that a CASA report into the incident has been released to interested parties this week, not sure if it will ever be made public.

[otto the grot]

Hmmmmmmmm.... interested parties, let's see....RFDS? oh, and maybe ambos victoria.:hmm:

[Compylot]

Were or are there any plans to recover the FDR?

[Howard Hughes]

Actually those involved Otto.:rolleyes:

Understand the FDR is under two kilometres of water.

[Car RAMROD]

Not sure on whose report it is, but have heard one is just about done and should be out soon.

How soon, well, how long is a piece of string?

Be interesting reading that's for sure.

[Fubaar]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to hear the CVR for the period + 10 seconds of touchdown.

And the pre-ditching briefing (and how long that took).

[Checkboard]

AO-2009-072 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072.aspx)

[Dog One]

I find the following statement by the ATSB interesting

Following the event, the aircraft operator initiated a program of checking and revalidation for the company's commercial Westwind pilots.

One would have assumed that operating aircraft above 5700, they would have had a CAR217 organisation with a minimum of two checks per year.

[zanzibar]

Checkboard - that's only an initial investigation notification and not a Preliminary Report which normally follows the initial investigation. Then, after usually a loooong time, comes the Final Report.

HH - An ATSB source tells me it's in water at less than 500 mtrs and they (ATSB) have already located the wreckage and attached a line to it to facilitate later retrieval of the FDR and CVR.

CarR - close to the money from my same source.

[Checkboard]

I'm aware of that. Post was more of a "watch this space" ;)

[MTOW]

From the link in post number 11:The crew then elected to ditch before the aircraft's fuel supply was exhausted.Has that been confirmed? That they 'elected' to ditch? As someone said above, I'm sure BASI are quite interested in listening to pre-ditching briefing on the CVR.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Well with all the "experts" on the telly saying what a top pilot he is, I'm sure he'll be busy sorting out which job offers to take up!:}

[Capt Claret]

Heard through the font of all knowledge, the Townsville Refueller, that 3/4 mil spent on avionics upgrade etc in the month before it were sunk! :eek:

MTOW, what pre ditching briefing? :uhoh:

[Under Dog]

Capt Claret
Rumour from a good source has it that it hadn't been entered on the insurance policy.

The Dog:ok:

[Wally Mk2]

Interesting how this thread is ramping up fast again after the original one that was 'sunk'
Just goes to show that humans in general like to 'watch' even if it is thru the written word.:)
Whatever the reason/cause for establishing a new underwater aviation museum off our coast is lets hope we can all learn from others possible mistakes.


Wmk2

[Howard Hughes]

HH - An ATSB source tells me it's in water at less than 500 mtrs and they (ATSB) have already located the wreckage and attached a line to it to facilitate later retrieval of the FDR and CVR.
Even in 500M of water you need some serious recovery equipment and I don't know that the ATSB has the funding to permit such a recovery, especially considering there were no fatalities.

I doubt very much the FDR/CVR will ever be recovered, after 6 plus weeks in the water the data may already be irretrievable!

[Andu]

... and could there be a few - or at least a couple - of people who won't be too upset about that?

[Counter-rotation]

Ask the pax about the pre-ditching briefing given to them,,, They could pretty easily describe it I'm sure

[zanzibar]

some serious recovery equipment

I understand from my contact that a submersible robot was used to attach the line and some recovery straps.

I doubt if the ATSB would be going to the effort if they didn't think the recorders would be of some use. Time will tell, of course.

[Joker 10]

The insurers would finance the recovery, it is evidence after all.

[puff]

Pel-air have an advert on AFAP for Westwind pilots, a few recent vacancies?

[Under Dog]

Can some one explain to me what the issue is that the Westwind/Pelair has with Noumea or has this been done before.What I understand is Jetcity does Noumea for Careflight with the Lear rather than Pelair.


Regards The Dog:ok:

[Car RAMROD]

Speaking recently to a local fisherman who tells me the aircraft is in water around 50 metres deep. Confirms it has been secured ready for lifting quite soon and which is expected to be a very straightforward operation.

[morno]

Puff, I'm not seeing one.

morno

[puff]

morno - quite correct I was on a work computer lastnight and I swear it was there, even showed it to someone. May have been an old cache or something - either way my error.
edit - i'm not going nuts just looked in the wrong spot -

Westwind Job (http://www.seek.com.au/job/westwind-jet-pilots-pel-air/sydney-south/16541802/51/1/)

[Compylot]

Understand the FDR is under two kilometres of water.

HH - An ATSB source tells me it's in water at less than 500 mtrs and they (ATSB) have already located the wreckage

Speaking recently to a local fisherman who tells me the aircraft is in water around 50 metres deep

Well I was speaking to a local Norfolk Island beachcomber the other day, he said that on a really low tide parts of the westwind wreckage are easily visible above the waterline!

[Checkboard]

Stubbed my toe on the damned thing walking along the beach just the other day.

[gobbledock]

Pel-air have an advert on AFAP for Westwind pilots, a few recent vacancies?

As well as experience and command hours the prospective Drivers must have washboard stomachs, rippling pecs, be tanned and willing to pose half naked with their 'undercarriage' protruding !

[Bloody Blind Bat]

GobblyDook,
The job qualifications you refer to certainly mirrors that of the wreckage ......
Washboard stomach, rippled pecs (amongst many other things), tanned
(and rusty), (very) naked but certainly not with the ( protruding and stiff
) undercarriage down.

Are you taking the piss? :E

[chainsaw]

As well as experience and command hours the prospective Drivers must have washboard stomachs, rippling pecs, be tanned and willing to pose half naked with their 'undercarriage' protruding !

Do they also need to be good at swimming? :}

[bilbert]

Float experience an advantage?

[Tinstaafl]

Oooh....ooooh.....Pick me! I haven't flown a jet but I have a floatplane endorsement. Surely that would be relevant? Or maybe floating hull?

On second thoughts, perhaps I need a non-floating hull endorsement.

[Andu]

Rumour has it that a CASA report into the incident has been released to interested parties this week, not sure if it will ever be made public.(posted, 2nd Jan)Is that the usual procedure? When you consider the initial media interest in the story, if a report has been released to 'interested parties', surely a copy will fall into some journo's hands and we'll all get to see or read a (probably equally inaccurate as the first reports) shock jock journo's version of its findings?

...perhaps not quite so adoring in tone as the first reports and concentrating a little less on rippling six packs and toned pecs and maybe a little more on things like pre-ditching briefings, or lack thereof?

[Howard Hughes]

From what I have heard from 'interested' (read 'involved') parties, the report is quite mild compared to what has been discussed on this site.

[GADRIVR]

You've hit the nail on the head there Howard.
Just wondering if the individuals who insisted on slandering the dude/dudette in question will be up for offering retractions/apologies?

[Mainframe]

Andu

CASA does not conduct accident investigations, however they will be waiting for the ATSB reort to determine if they can get involved.

ATSB investigates and reports in the interests of Air Safety and makes recommendations to reduce the likelihood of recurrance.

CASA are not particularly interested in air safety, their preference is enforcement.

ATSB will normally release a draft report to affected and interested parties.
This correctly gives the affected and interested parties the opportunity to proof read and advise of any inaccuracies in the report.

The final ATSB report will be clinical and make observations and recommendations. (They nailed CASA in the Lockhart River tragedy)

CASA will quickly take up any regulatory breaches identified except their own.

We seemed to have forgotten the Whyalla Air tragedy, where numerous "experts" formed numerous and wrong opinions as to the cause.

History tells us that Whyalla Air were some of the early victims of faulty Lycoming crankshafts
that had granular defects during manufacture leading to eventual catastrophic failure.

[KRUSTY 34]

Food for thought:

WX update indicates your destination now requires an alternate. You decide not to divert, even though you still have fuel to do so.
Wx at destination crappy, remaining fuel used up during numerous instrument approaches.
Cloudbase well below minima, but approx 300' AGL
Flameout imminant, approaching minima!
Considering poor command decision making earlier, the obvious may not have appeared obvious?Anyone remember Avianca? :sad:

[Jabawocky]

..........and engine mismanagement :=

[Wally Mk2]

It will still be interesting to some whatever the outcome of this event is.Like I have said in a previous post lets hope we ALL learn from this incident/accident. Aviation is a breeding ground for incidents/accidents it's also a ground for learning.

Whatever the reason as to why this crew found themselves with no options but to ditch the one deciding factor that I always based my decisions on in similar missions was SE flight or Depress flight, both scenarios will take you straight to the bottom of the Pacific if it happened with no Alt's quicker than other poor decision. On missions where range was critical the effective range of any light jet such as the Westwind Etc was based on what you could expect with an engine out or an unpressurized cabin. Obviously both situations would mean a much lower crz Alt & therefore lower TAS & with a fuel flow somewhere similar too two engine burn at Alt. where the Tas was higher & range further.
An Eg. A Std LR35 would consume around 1100 lbs (better in LRC) at high crz Alt under ISA cond's with say 470 kts TAS giving an effective range of around (assuming nil wind for calc purposes only) 2100 NM with basic reserves. Add in an eng failure with a crz Alt of 25K (max for airframe type if I recall) the FF would be somewhere around 1400 lbs per hr on 1 donk (LRC was avail on one donk with less FF but TAS was even less meaning extended exposure to further problems over water) & remembering getting a TAS of 300 kts meansyou get say 1000+ Nm's............you go figure it out! That's why I NEVER planned such a mission unless I had a SE/Depress out option on long over water Pacific hops.

They all walked away (swam) that's the good news here, the rest we wait & learn


Wmk2

[Capt Claret]

They all walked away (swam) that's the good news here ...

From what I've been told, that they all swam away was pure fluke, as there was no warning of the ditching. :eek:

[Andu]

There's a story (I think it was in one of Ernest Gann's books) of a Catalina crew flying in IMC over Greenland during World War 2 when their airspeed gradually reduced to near zero despite their having full power applied on the engines. Amazingly, they'd flown - very, very smothly - into a very gently rising snow-covered hill and the aircraft (and very surprised as well as very, very lucky crew) ended up stranded on the snow drift for quite a few days before they were rescued.

Is it possible this incident was along the same lines?

[KLN94]

Isn't the Westwind equipped with radar altimeter? Wouldn't it be reading out "500 feet", "400 feet", etc, then 'whoop whoop, pull up, terrain" etc when it detected the water? If so, how could a controlled flight into the water without the pilot's knowledge be possible?

[Centaurus]

If so, how could a controlled flight into the water without the pilot's knowledge be possible?

Radio altimeter may not be accurate over water -especially calm seas. Also maybe the radio altimeter on that aircraft was inoperative at the time? Facts are not public yet.

On pitch black night in low cloud and maybe rain, the landing lights will reflect badly into the cockpit and crew forward vision is seriously affected. And that means highly probable the crew would never see the water surface until too late.

If you have ever driven a car at night on black surfaced road with headlights on and road surface wet, you will note there is very little reflected illumination off the surface of the road. So bad in fact that even a white painted line may not be visible. That is why the crew may not actually see the sea until too late.

Same with weather radar tilted down from high altitude over the ocean. With calm seas you probably will not obtain a clear ground return. However, if seas are rough the radar will often get a bounce back from the concave side of large curling waves.

[my oleo is extended]

mainframe ,
CASA does not conduct accident investigations, however they will be waiting for the ATSB reort to determine if they can get involved.

You are not quite correct,CASA does not conduct accident investigations off their own back, true. However CASA does not need to wait until the ATSB hands down it's 'final investigation report' to get involved because the ATSB can and does at times ask for and receives a Specialist Technical Inspector to 'assist' the ATSB within the scope of the investigation ( prior to any report ).The CASA Inspector is not conducting an accident investigation, but is assisting as requested by the ATSB by providing specialist knowledge advice.

CASA are not particularly interested in air safety, their preference is enforcement.

Utter crap. Air Safety is priority number 1. If you have an issue with 'enforcement' then don't break the rules, pretty simple really. And if you feel you are hard done by, then contact the Independant Industry Complaints Comissioner with your complaint. And after all that if you still think you have been shafted or unfairly treated, then the whole world probably has it in for you !

The final ATSB report will be clinical and make observations and recommendations. (They nailed CASA in the Lockhart River tragedy)

Yes, that is correct. There were findings aimed at CASA in relation to Lockhart River.
The ATSB's role in accident investigations can and does pinpoint the causal factors of all accidents, and the ATSB apportions blame where blame is due, and that includes the Regulator if they are at fault. However, your taking a cheap shot in regards to Lockhart River on this thread is lame.

CASA will quickly take up any regulatory breaches identified except their own.

That is hypocritical. You just mentioned that CASA copped a 'nailing' over Lockhart River, yet you also say they don't 'take up any regulatory breaches of their own'.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.I agree with you that the Regulator does make mistakes, but name me one Aviation company that has never made a mistake, employed a nimwit, or made a knee jerk reaction to something in haste ? I say it how it is, if the Regulator screws up, I am not shy to point it out. If industry screws up, I am just as happy to point that out also.

[Wiley]

The Catalina accident Andu was referring to: Crash 27.1.1943 (20.7.2004) (http://www.warcovers.dk/greenland/crash270143.htm)

Consolidated PBY-5A Catalina
(7278)

This accident occurred while flying over Greenland Ice Cap at an altitude of 4500-ft indicated. This should have given a clearance of 1000-ft according to charts of the area. Weather and snow covered terrain resulted in poor depth perception. Without realizing they were close to the ice, as a horizon was visible and were not on instruments, they suddenly made contact on the upgrade of a 400-ft slope. the pilot immediately applied throttles in an attempt to get into air but was unsuccessful due to the slope. Further attempts to swing plane around in order to take-off down grade were unsuccessful as plane sank into snow and ice. Block and tackle was dropped, but that also proved unsuccessful. The Ice Cap presents an unbroken pure white surface and when the prominent cost of landmarks are not visible, depth perception is extremely difficult, analagons to flying over glassy water in low visibility. It is considered that the fundamental cause of this accident was the almost lack of depth perception. This plane and its crew were strained (stranded?) on the ice cap for fifteen days, but were in constant touch with there base by radio. A plane dropped supplies and salvage equipment. On the 14th day a Danish Rescue party reached them. On the fifteenth day they abandoned there (their?) plane, all confidential publications, the IFF, SBAE and RADAR being destroyed. They returned by foot to the rescue party's came and on the sixteenth day returned to the NORTH STAR. Except for extreme cold, none of the crew suffered any ill effects.

Lt(jg). R. W. Shepard (Pilot)
Lt(jg). A. H. Gilster (co-pilot)
AP2c. M. V. Egert
Amm2c. N. J. Richey, Jr.
Amm3c. W. Blankenship
Rm1c. J. J. Rutowski
Rm3c. E. R. Herbert.Not quite as Andu recalled it - the poor ***s weren't IMC, (they had an horizon), but were victims of 'whiteout', not unlike the Mt Erebus tragedy.

[Frank Arouet]

the Independant Industry Complaints Comissioner

That is an oxymoron.

The CASA paid "independant" complaints commissioner was set up as a hurdle you had to overcome to say you had "exhausted all other avenues" of redress before you could make a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

CASA are not particularly interested in air safety, their preference is enforcement.

This is probably the most accurate statement ever made about this organisation. If you don't believe it to be true, you probably work for them, so are biased in your opinion, or under their umberella of protection.

[A Comfy Chair]

My Oleo Is Extended:

If CASA are so determined to promote safety, why do they, on one hand, promote Safety Management Systems and a Just culture, and then on the other accept offences of strict liablity?

The two are mutually exclusive, and show that CASA wants to appear to be safety minded (with SMS), but on the flipside are prepared to disregard the basic principles of it by penalising without consideration! Strict liability does not fit with a just culture.

[601]

From the Preliminary Aviation Safety Investigation Report Ditching – Norfolk Island – 18 November 2009

At Apia, the pilot in command submitted a flight plan by telephone to Airservices Australia. At that time, the forecast weather conditions at Norfolk Island for the arrival did not require the carriage of additional fuel for holding, or the nomination of an alternate airport.

I do hope ATSB has a subscription to the CAOs, especially CAO 82.0 and someone in the ATSB reads it.

An alternate was required irrespective of forecast conditions. CAO82.0.2.4(a)

(a) the minimum amount of fuel that will, whatever the weather conditions, enable the aeroplane to fly, with all its engines operating, to the remote island and then from the remote island to the aerodrome that is, for that flight, the alternate aerodrome for the aircraft, together with any reserve fuel requirements for the aircraft; and

[Blue Sky Baron]

Did anyone else note from the Preliminary Report that it is stated that the PIC was the first to exit the aircraft leaving his injured copilot and passengers to fend for themselves. Sounds like real hero stuff to me if that is what actually happened!
I seriously hope that was not the case, I would like to think he was just a little concerned for the others on board.
BSB :rolleyes:

[pcx]

601

Not necessarily so.

You quoted a bit selectively from the CAO.

The relevant part of the CAO is:-

2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are: (my bolding)
(a) the minimum amount of fuel that will, whatever the weather conditions,
enable the aeroplane to fly, with all its engines operating, to the remote
island and then from the remote island to the aerodrome that is, for that
flight, the alternate aerodrome for the aircraft, together with any reserve
fuel requirements for the aircraft; and



2.3 The
minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote
island is:
(a) the minimum amount of fuel that the aeroplane should carry on that
flight, according to the operations manual of the aeroplane’s operator,
revised (if applicable) as directed by CASA to ensure that an adequate
amount of fuel is carried on such flights; or
(b) if the operations manual does not make provision for the calculation of
that amount or has not been revised as directed by CASA — whichever
of the amounts of fuel mentioned in paragraph 2.4 is the greater.

This means that Para 2.4 has to be interpreted in association with 2.3 (b). If Para 2.3 (a) applies then the fuel required is as per the ops manual.

Do you know what the Pelair manual specifies. I don't.

An added complication as I see it is "was this flight was a charter or an Ambulance function airwork flight".

If it was a charter then the above rules apply.

If AWK then I do not think they apply. Bear in mind that Section 2 of CAO 82.0 is interpretation not the actual requirement.

CAO 80.0.3 A says:-

3A Conditions for passenger-carrying charter operations to remote
islands
3A.1 Each certificate authorising charter operations for the carriage of passengers is
subject to the condition that an aeroplane operated under the certificate is to
carry passengers on a flight to a remote island only if:
(a) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(b) the total amount of fuel carried by the aeroplane at the start of the flight is
not less than the minimum safe fuel for the aeroplane for that flight; and
(c) the alternate aerodrome for the aeroplane for that flight is not an
aerodrome located on a remote island.

This clearly applies to Passenger carrying charter, not freight charter, aerial work nor private operations.

So what are the real requirements. Frankly, I don't know. I suspect that a definative answer to this might involve Barristers and a Federal Court judge.

Unfortunately this is another case of complex convoluted regulation that has been developed by a reactive regulator rather than a proactive one.

Not having a go at you 601. Rather trying to point out the complexities of the regulatory system that we have to try interpret and fly by.

[MyNameIsIs]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1345477/ao-2009-072-prelim.pdf

There's the report

[601]

PCX

I bow to your superior interpretation of the CAO and that 3A is the requirement and 2.3 and 2.4 are "interpretations" for 3A and it would only apply to Charter Ops.

But was it an AWK flight or a Charter flight? ATSB seem to think so

Type of Operation: Other Aerial Work

However, this is where the legal eagles will have a field day.

If it was AWK the only persons that should have been carried were the patient, medical personnel and the flight crew.

Persons other than the flight crew are not permitted on AWK fights unless they have a function to the safe operation of the aircraft - medical personnel meet this requirement.

But would a "patient's partner" have a function on the flight?

[truth boy]

So are the so called experts with inside information going to man up and retract some of there statements.(Two liferafts and enough lifevests for all,rapid sinking not allowing time to deploy raft,radio calls made and crew advised of iminent ditching).

Waiting patiently..............

[acementhead]

The captain was a hero. Risked life to go to get help.


http://atsb.gov.au/media/1345477/ao-2009-072-prelim.pdf


Why oh why didn't Sully do it right, the way a TRUE hero does, as in this case?

[hogey74]

This appeared on abc.net.au at about 3pm AEDT today:

Ditched plane survivors swam to safety: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/13/2791529.htm)

[Fubaar]

From the reportAs the aircraft initiated the third missed approach from runway 11, the copilot instructed the passengers to prepare for the ditching.If this is accurate, (as you'd expect it to be), it means the earlier newspaper report that had a passenger saying there was no pre-ditching briefing was untrue.

Quite a few here and in the earlier thread based their comments on the possibility of it being a CFIT on this earlier newspaper report.

[Dogimed]

Forget Sully, what about the locals

Ironically headed towards Norfolk

DOUGLAS DC-3 VH-EDC
Botany Bay, New South Wales
24 April 1994

On Sunday 24 April 1994, at about 0910 EST, Douglas DC-3 aircraft VH-EDC took off from
runway 16 at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The crew reported an engine malfunction
during the initial climb and subsequently ditched the aircraft into Botany Bay. The DC-3 was
on a charter flight to convey a group of college students and their band equipment from
Sydney to Norfolk Island and return as part of Anzac Day celebrations on the island. All 25
occupants, including the four crew, successfully evacuated the aircraft before it sank.

By the time this initial transfer had been completed, water had already begun to enter the aircraft through the forward fuselage. The pilot in command
therefore instructed the passengers to expedite their evacuation. When the remaining passengers had egressed, the pilot in command and the supernumerary pilot left the aircraft through the rear exit.

Bypassing Four exits to ensure these two guys were the last off the aircraft.

Dog

[truth boy]

I look at it this way.

#First out of his seat.

#Attempts to open main door but water flow does not allow door to open.

#Proceeds to hatch and opens hatch.

#Due to f@#k all room in cabin he proceeds out in an attempt to assist people out of the cabin but due to the sinking speed is unable to assist.

# remainder assist themselves and are lucky in doing that as when the second hatch is pulled it is fully submersed and the last one out appears to have to swim for the surface.

I dont think he has done that much wrong there but i guess its easier to join the sheep with the continued below the belt cheap shots hey.

[truth boy]

The westwind was under within 3 minutes and the cabin was probably under well befor this judging by the fact the last guy out had to swim for the surface.

The above example sounds like the captain had time to whip out for lunch and a movie before it sank.:}

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Excuse my ignorance but what would the transit time to Noumea be from Norfolk in a Westwind on best fuel numbers?

[Howard Hughes]

Interestingly there is no mention of what the company fuel policy is with regard to 'remote islands'. Regardless of whether the flight was air work or charter, I would have thought the company ops manual to be more prescriptive than the regulations.
But would a "patient's partner" have a function on the flight?
Yes, emotional support!:ok:

[NAMPS]

More quality reporting...

'Hero pilot' Dominic James was among first to leave ditched plane | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/hero-pilot-dominic-james-was-among-first-to-leave-ditched-plane/story-e6frfkvr-1225818914099)

No extra fuel was carried in the plane's wing tip tanks despite Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regulations forcing pilots to carry enough fuel for emergencies.

CASA approved the air operator certificate for the airline, Pel-Air, despite lax observance of fuel rules.


I lol'd at this one...

The pilot and co-pilot later told investigators they never saw the surface of the sea before ditching around 100km/h.

[tinpis]

If it quacks...

[RAndrew]

The prelimary report was relaesed today, 13 January 10.

[scarediecat]

Crikey Truth Boy.

It is the preliminary report and we are on a anonomous rumour network. Things happened that night I imagine that were good and bad. To expect apologies from ppruner's is hypocritical. Everyone has an opinion and are entitled to it. No need to get worked up.

[truth boy]

Nah mate. not worked up and im all for a bit of rumour flinging but it got well beyond that from many posters.
My mate said this,i know that, this is what happened,I have a source blah blah blah. This is the stuff that i disagree with and can damage many reputations before the truth comes out.Poor form from some. Not all just some. I guess the low blow attacks will take on a few different directions now. Glad im perfect in everyway and never make a mistake ;)

[Max Dover]

The end for the ICC?

Mr Michael Hart - the failed ICC no longer works for CASA. Finnished or was terminated at Xmas.
Does anybody know if they are going to keep the office open or does CASA have some other cunning plan to deal with industry malcontents?

[my oleo is extended]

Max,

The end for the ICC?

Mr Michael Hart - the failed ICC no longer works for CASA. Finnished or was terminated at Xmas.
Does anybody know if they are going to keep the office open or does CASA have some other cunning plan to deal with industry malcontents?

Oh dear. Wait til Frank finds out !!!!

[GADRIVR]

Truth Boy,
It's probably a exercise in futility in trying to defend the crew on this forum (though you are totally correct in doing so) The prelim report is pretty straight forward. Statements such as Scadiecats pretty well much typifies what one could expect from a large amount of the posters here.
I still would like to see the people who insisted on carving up the crew on this forum offer them an apology......but it won't happen:ugh:
I'd point out that the medical crew involved were quite happy to talk to the TV crews and heaped praise on the pilot for his actions after the ditching when they were all in the water.
I'd point out that the company (irrespective of what one may think of them) backed the crew and their actions from the outset.
I could point out a helluva lot more.....but at this point, there's no need.

Dom and Zoe........well done on handling an awful situation and walking away with your pax safe. The vast majority of people that I and others have spoken to that are involved in the industry and seem to be reasonable people are filled with admiration for you two and have also voiced disgust on what has been posted on this forum in relation to your situation. Heads up, you've more supporters than you could imagine.
I'd ask if anyone has any issue with what I've posted......PM me. Keep it private, be personal if you want, but for Gods sake don't do it in public!
:D

[Counter-rotation]

Not really the core of this thread, but:

For mine, Mainframe has just about nailed it, along with Frank Arouet.

My Oleo is... - mate, you're in denial. That's the nicest way I can say it :rolleyes:

CASA took flack over LHR - and as I understand things, they deserved it!! It's not hypocritical at all to say that they:

will quickly take up any regulatory breaches identified except their own
I would bet that if CASA, and not the ATSB were investigating, none of the issues relating to surveillance of the company would even have been mentioned!

Did they squirm and duck and weave? Yep.
Did they admit any responsibility? Of course not. (The statements made by BB to the press after the accident was some of the most gutless duck-shoving I've ever seen.)
Has anything changed at CASA? No. Of course not.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.I agree with you that the Regulator does make mistakes, but name me one Aviation company that has never made a mistake, employed a nimwit, or made a knee jerk reaction to something in haste ?

Oleo, name me one Aviation company that does it TIME and TIME and TIME again, and is STILL IN BUSINESS!!

CR

[Fly_by_wire]

ATSB report makes Pel-Air, its pilot and CASA look like fools – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/01/13/atsb-report-makes-pel-air-its-pilot-and-casa-look-like-fools/)

[truth boy]

Its clear by Sandilands response to the report that he has a deep hatred for Pel-Air. All spin from him will be negative.

[Under Dog]

Truth Boy

I understand and repect your right to defend those involved but one must ask the question on how they got into this situation in the first place and that is certainly not hero stuff.

Regards The Dog

[Frank Arouet]

The end for the ICC?

Possibly, and no loss to the industry. I doubt any individual could work "independantly" while being paid by CASA. It may be that Michael Hart felt compromised and therefor became a liability. In which case he deserves respect if he initiated the action.

does CASA have some other cunning plan to deal with industry malcontents?

Yes Baldrick, it's a cunning clutch of Lawyers, given a re-run after the new Director was inveigled into handing the reins back to them. All prepared to spend the last cent in the taxpayers purse to prosecute an action whether it has legal merit or not.

They will have to do better because ASIC are catching them as "the biggest loosers".

Watch this space for upcoming dramas of regulatory and enforcement mahem.

[Mainframe]

My Oleo,

In answer to your question, yes, I am one of many subjected to a CASA vendetta for no obvious reason other than it seems to be a sport with them.

As for the ICC, well I dealt with 5 of them, its a short lived position, Michael Hart was the longest survivor, and none of them came up with the goods.

The ICC is paid by CASA, thus compromising the incumbent and merely leaving the ICC as a source of intelligence on misconduct,
to be used to protect the offenders.

The Skehill report on the NQ TLFO springs to mind.

Bruce Byron, to his credit, cleaned out the rogue element responsible, giving them all golden parachutes, and righted some of the wrongs done.

I had done nothing wrong, just happened to be under the former rogue NQ office at Townsville in its heyday, since almost cleaned up.

Not one CASA officer involved in the criminal misconduct was charged with any offence, they all left quietly through the back door with their benefits intact.

I delayed answering you because I couldn't believe that anyone involved in civil aviation in GA could possibly be so naive.

I also knew that other posters would soon help you see the reality is not the same as the service charter.

Perhaps you came into aviation through the ADF, as some of the misfits did, or maybe came from another country straight into the Oz airline system.

You appear not to have been in GA in Qld, NT, WA and NSW, each of which had their little aberations and unique styles.

If you missed out on that, good for you, you're then entitled to either a blinkered or optimistic view of the regulator.

I would recommend a little background reading of AAT hearings, possibly contact Paul Phelan for a copy of the Phelan Papers, talk to Richard Rudd etc.

You would be distressed to see the depths to which the misfits can sink.

Like you, I would like to believe we have an ethical regulator, and an uncompromised ICC.

Byron was well on track to achieving that, and since his departure, watch some of the misfits creep back into the system.

I must state that there are many more good, professional and ethical CASA staff than there are misfits within CASA.

Bit like the Police force, mostly dedicated professionals doing a great job, and a few who probably dont belong with them.

When a group of them (misfits) are clustered together in the one office the outcome is predictable.

I have benefitted greatly from the professionals, and suffered terribly at the hands of misfits, as have many others.

The Pprune forums proved to be a very effective tool in having the NQ office brought into line, and possibly others as an indirect result.

[morno]

Dom and Zoe........well done on handling an awful situation and walking away with your pax safe. The vast majority of people that I and others have spoken to that are involved in the industry and seem to be reasonable people are filled with admiration for you two and have also voiced disgust on what has been posted on this forum in relation to your situation. Heads up, you've more supporters than you could imagine.
I'd ask if anyone has any issue with what I've posted......PM me. Keep it private, be personal if you want, but for Gods sake don't do it in public!

GADRIVR,
I agree, they did handle the situation well from what has been said in the report. However..... Why did they find themselves in this situation in the first place? Especially when there is a CAR that stipulates flights to this island REQUIRE alternate fuel, regardless of the weather!

Putting yourself into this situation because you haven't followed the rules and regs, and plain common sense (would you fly to an aerodrome in the middle of the ocean with no fuel to go anywhere else, regardless of weather?), is not what I would call a hero. They're just lucky that everyone got out alive.

I'll support a pilot who finds themselves in these situations, however not when stupidity is the main cause.

morno

[Frank Arouet]

Mainframe;

It's not thread drift if we pause to discuss perceived views or misdirected loyalty toward those characters central to the matter at hand.

[The Butcher's Dog]

Instigating an aeromedical flight is complex, with an abundance of “Third Party” interest (pressure) often culminating in those on board not being fully integrated with the critical (or non critical) nature of the patient condition, operational logistics and the affects of weather.
Each person on board operates to their individual level of competence without knowing the acute complexities of the flight or what specifically each professional individual will be dealing with. In short, those on board may not have a global view of the situation. There are valid reasons for this.
Flight Tasking, Piloting, Medical and Nursing crew can, and often do work for different organizations and have their Individual Contract Service Delivery requirements and expectations.
With all the different agencies involved how does this affect Flight Tasking and Integrated Training, specifically Crew Resource Management, competency based Emergency and Cabin Safety Training.
With all the conjecture about what the pilot may or may not have done or should have done. At the end of the day the decisions made culminated in the aircraft at the bottom of the sea – all on board lucky to have survived. The weather circumstances at Norfolk Island were not out of character or what can be expected.
The five Investigation Activities, page 6 of the interim report are critical – the answers lie there rather than belting the pilot/crew. The real “Hero” will be the person who can dig through the abundance of chaff to get to the facts and instigate change management.

[BombsGone]

Nice summary butchers dog. One of the more constructive comments here.

[puff]

Firstly I think it's admirable that people are defending the crew, thats fine, however the fact that everyone lived was more sheer luck than good management anywhere along the flight.

The Facts - as per the report.
Firstly higher than expected headwinds = more fuel required than planned
Updated weather during the flight - weather below alt. minima = more fuel/diversion possibly required.

Surely firstly with these 2 items in mind and heading to a remote island with non precision approaches dictate a command decision that fuel would be an issue and diversion is needed?

Ignoring that lack of decision - they are then at TOD NLK - are continued to be told that WX was awful and below alt minima, yet they press on. I remember at PPL level being told to 'never back yourself into a corner'. In my opinion NLK at night, rotten WX and minimum fuel is the deepest darkest corner you could find.

They then continue to do approach after approach, then DITCH an aircraft into the ocean without formulating a plan with the very people who would rescue you. There are delays in NLK with launching boats due to no jetty. At the very least surely you would have wanted to communicate an approx direction and have communicated DME/GPS distance via radio before you actually hit. The facts show that the ground were searching in completely the wrong area, and it was just sheer luck that the airport fireman happened to on gut instint drive a different direction, and the PIC happened to have a torch, AND they were able to see it.

Lastly it appears that the PIC left the cockpit with a possibly unconscious(or at least dazed) F/O in a cabin rapidly filling with water, and upon finding a suitable exit left the aircraft leaving his crew and pax to fend for themselves. It was just very lucky for the medical crew onboard that they had experienced one of the best training programs when it comes to underwater extraction that everyone managed to get out.

Am I missing something that would dictate that we would be giving the crew kudos for all the above or was I reading a different report ?

[Aerozepplin]

If there'd been an erroneous report of CAVOK or the like, and the crew then found to their supprise that conditions were actually below minima, then there'd be a number of people eating their words.

I see nothing in that report however to suggest any factor other than deficiencies with in-flight decision making, and possibly company or individual standards of flight planning. The personification of the PIC was the media's fault, and personal attacks on anyone in relation to an incident/accident are unnecessary.

One would imagine if the operator flies to Norfolk, then they would have standard procedures for fuel and diversions. One would assume these wouldn't include the process of: flight - missed approach - missed approach - missed approach - wet pants - wet pax.

[morno]

If there'd been an erroneous report of CAVOK or the like, and the crew then found to their supprise that conditions were actually below minima, then there'd be a number of people eating their words.

NOO!!!!

CAO 82.0, stipulates that it doesn't matter what the weather forecast says, YOU MUST CARRY ALTERNATE FUEL FOR FLIGHTS TO NORFOLK ISLAND!

The pilots have f**ked up right from the outset, by not carrying the alternate fuel that is stipulated in CAO 82.0. They had chances to redeem themselves enroute, but even then, they carried on.

I notice in the preliminary report, that so far, it's not too damning for the PIC. However, I think once they start expanding out to the parts of the investigation they say they will now focus on, it might come out that our "Hero" shouldn't have even taken off with the little amount of fuel he had.

morno

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Looks like the only "heroes" here are the ones who fished them out of the ocean.

[KRUSTY 34]

Couldn't agree more with you on that one CFI.

morno:

Does the provision of an alternate apply to AWK operations? If not, I think one of the debates (read: legal arguements) may centre around the interpretation as to whether this flight should have been in that catagory. :confused:

[Mach E Avelli]

CAO 82.0 1.1 and CAO 82.0 2.1 etc are as clear as can be. An alternate is required, even when Norfolk is CAVOK. 2.3 may appear to allow CASA to 'approve' a lesser fuel policy, but the operative word there is 'adequate'. When 2.4 is then read as part of the whole deal, it is fortunate for CASA that no lives were lost or the litigants would now be finishing CASA for good (and not before time), had they approved something less.
CAO 82.0 includes Aerial Work operations.

[early2]

As an example, the Remote Island Fuel Policy in my ops manual does not require an alternate for a Remote Island, unless the weather forecast for three hours either side of the ETA are below published alt minima plus 500'/1000m

However you can not press on past your PNR for the depressurised case without the WX for one hour either side of ETA being above published alt minima plus 500'/1000m.

[bonvol]

However you can not press on past your PNR for the depressurised case without the WX for one hour either side of ETA being above published alt minima plus 500'/1000m.

Having operated to Norfolk many times I would not be too comfortable with that policy, especially at night.

Alt Minima + 500 can deteriorate to zilch in minutes there.

[Under Dog]

There must be a fine line between AWK and Charter in this situation with Careflight chartering the aircraft from pelair and the medical crew not being classed as Crew.

The Dog

[early2]

Having operated to Norfolk many times I would not be too comfortable with that policy, especially at night.

Alt Minima + 500 can deteriorate to zilch in minutes there.

I agree, and was just giving an example of what CASA accept/approve as a remote island fuel policy.

[adsyj]

I really really hope I am interpreting the wording of the report incorrectly.

In my opinion if the PIC left his unconscious co-pilot and his passengers to fend for themselves then any punishment he recieves will be nothing with having to live the rest of his life knowing that he is a you know what.

Please tell me I've got it wrong, but it looks shocking.

[Andu]

adsyj, don't worry yourself about it. If there's even a hint of truth in what you've inferred from the initial report, the Australian tabloid press and early evening TV, having put the guy on a such a very high pedestal themselves, will be falling over themselves to knock him off it.

Tall poppies and all that sort of stuff.

[Checkboard]

The point now, surely, is - how to make sure it doesn't happen again. :ouch:

I wonder if the ATSB report will conclude:

Safety Deficiencies:
The safety deficiencies identified relate to the accuracy of meteorological forecasts for Norfolk Island. The Bureau of Meteorology has advised that forecasts for remote Islands such as Norfolk are difficult to predict with accuracy and un-forecast conditions may occur without notice. Despite this advice the TAF issued at the commencement of the flight did not reflect this position.

Safety Recommendation:
Until the Bureau of Meteorology is confident of the accuracy of its forecasts for remote islands, a "PROB 20" line for constant conditions below the landing minima be added to every forecast to warn pilots of the Bureau of Meteorology's position that these conditions may occur without notice.

Safety Deficiencies:
It is possible that this flight was planned without regard to the changes instigated after the VH-TWR incident of 13 December 1999 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/aair/aair199900604.aspx#tab_2), which required alternate fuel for some operations to remote islands regardless of forecast. It is possible that the pilot in command was not aware of these requirements (or did not recall them at the time of pre-flight planning) as they are included in the CAOs, a different document to those usually referred to in pre-flight planning for normal operations. It is possible, that the PIC (as a PIC would for a mainland operation) simply compared the forecast conditions with the Alternate Minima listed on the Norfolk Is. approach chart.

Safety Recommendation:
The Alternate Minima section of all approach charts for all remote island destinations be amended to include a note that an alternate is required, regardless of forecast, for passenger carrying CHTR and RPT operations.

[my oleo is extended]

mainframe,
Your response and explanation satisfies me greatly. I am also genuinely dissapointed that you have been treated in such a manner throughout your career.
Your argument makes sense, and I appreciate the time you put into your response. I would only disagree on one point, and that is my being naive. I guess that my 'work experience' has been of a nature that has shielded me from being specifically in the Regulators spotlight, however, as a member of the aviation community I am not immune to their powers. I have received worse treatment from other people within sectors of the aviation community than I have from CASA. Does that make me lucky ? I guess it certainly seems that way. Does my being treated 'reasonably' in the past from the Regulator mean that people such as yourself have not been treated fairly ? Of course not.
Again, thank you for your open response. You have climbed a notch in my book of respect.
To everybody else, apologies for the 'dirft' and back to the thread.

[Dangly Bits]

I'm with Owen Stanley.

I read the report also and thought to myself, if Captain Hero departed the aircraft leaving his F/O out cold then best he not be standing beside me in a bar. I'll fill the room full of uppercuts.

:ouch::ouch::ouch:

[601]

CAO 82.0.3A is the requirement and 2.3 and 2.4 are "interpretations" for 3A. Therefore this requirement would only apply to pax carrying Charter Ops.

Read 3A first and then refer to 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4 for the interpretations of "minimum safe fuel" and "remote island"

[Compylot]

I'm not really surprised by some of the self absorbed, inward and egotistical holier than thou drivel being posted here, but actually seeing it makes me sick to the core.

Statements such as

In my opinion if the PIC left his unconscious co-pilot and his passengers to fend for themselves then any punishment he receives will be nothing with having to live the rest of his life knowing that he is a you know what. from adsyj

and

I haven't got the experience to be making judgments and am awaiting a final report, I wonder if ALL the details will emerge?

BUT.........The comment below sums it up for me...............

If that's what happened, hang your head in shame boy http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

By Owen Stanley who by the way has a history of sweeping statements made about crew and their reactions in an emergency situation... you really make me sick. :yuk: (We all love an expert flying instructor)

NO, you obviously DO NOT have the experience to be making final judgments, nor any judgments on what ANY of that crew did in such a horrifically traumatic event such as escaping a rapidly sinking aircraft in the middle of the ocean at night!!!!!!?

How dare you make judgement??!

HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME!

Regardless of what happened to result in that situation, to sit here and read page after page of cheap shot personal criticism makes me utterly utterly SICK!!

With the benefit of hindsight isn't it all so obvious what should or shouldn't of been done, but isn't this the case with nearly ALL accidents???

Are you willing to stand up and totally put down, criticize and berate the many hundreds or thousands of pilots that have died through human error?

Let's all learn from this accident, be thankful that no one was killed (and god, what a miracle no one was) and stop the personal attacks!

[johnp2162]

I really really hope I am interpreting the wording of the report incorrectly.

In my opinion if the PIC left his unconscious co-pilot and his passengers to fend for themselves then any punishment he recieves will be nothing with having to live the rest of his life knowing that he is a you know what.

Please tell me I've got it wrong, but it looks shocking.


From what I know you have it right. He got to the exit damn quickly, opened the hatch, and out he went. In fairness he may not have had much choice in a cramped and dark cabin if water poured in when he opened the hatch. Still it looks bad. It was his decision making that got everyone into this mess. Then he opens the hatch, floods the cabin, and is the first out. This was one captain who wasn't going down with the ship.

[prospector]

" Let's all learn from this accident, be thankful that no one was killed (and god, what a miracle no one was) and stop the personal attacks!"


These "lessons" have been taught for many years now. It is not a question of learning from, but rather applying the knowledge already available.

To my mind it is stretching the use of the word accident, this was the culmination of a number of errors ending in an inevitable conclusion.

[Tempo]

then best he not be standing beside me in a bar. I'll fill the room full of uppercuts

Wow.....you are such a hero. Maybe you can send me your autograph.

[MyNameIsIs]

Does anybody know whether or not a Westwind with full tanks would be able to carry the approximate load (6 POB, aeromed gear etc) that this one had?
Am thinking, if you can take the fuel, why not?
Know nothing about the Westwind...

Also, does anyone have any idea of the fuel prices between Apia and NLK? Wondering if kero is cheaper in Apia- if so, would have made more sense to load as much as possible on then rather than taking mins....


The report makes for interesting reading, but the final one should line up all the holes for us.
Maybe CASA will amend the CAOs to (in better phrase than mine) "All flights to remote aerodromes require an alternate." ??????

[adsyj]

Compylot

I pondered long and hard before making my post including reading again and again the report to make sure my comprehension of what was being inferred in the report was correct.

As a professional aviator the passengers safety is our responsibility and ultimately is the Captains. My post was not made by listening to rumour or hearsay but was a direct result of the description of the evacuation from the official report.

I prefaced my post with the words " I really really hope I'm wrong" and that still stands. On reflection the part of my post you have quoted may turn out to be harsh and unjust and if this is proven to be the case nothing would please me more.

My understanding from the report is the Captain entered the cabin and opened the door. Directly from the report it said he then exited the aircraft. The report states liferafts which were available were not deployed and the remaining passengers were left aboard and attended to their own evacuation. There may be valid reason for this but I cannot think of a valid reason. Again I hope I am proven to be wrong and the report is poorly worded or is missing vital information regards the interaction between the Captain his co-pilot and the passsengers.

[Howard Hughes]

I have been thinking about this overnight. ..

Now I have never been in a Westwind, but I imagine like most small jets it is very cramped. With the F/O incapacitated the Captain may well have been the only person able to open the door, let's face it emergency exits can be hard to open on dry land in daylight, let alone bobbing in the ocean on a dark night. Once having opened the door perhaps the only option was for the Captain to swim out as he may have been blocking egress for others, where he then assisted from outside the aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

HH...... I started typing a post last night along the same lines but decided better of it, and closed the page, but that may well be an accurate description.

Still beats my why you would leave with out 100% fuel, when by my limited research the a/c probably was not suffering a MTOW issue. The fuel at Apia would look pretty cheap about now!

[The Green Goblin]

While the facts seem to be stacking up against this silly bugger just remember, those in glass houses shan't cast stones.

We've all made a few silly mistakes and been pretty lonely up the front there for a while. Luckily fate smiled on us on those occasions and we are still around to be pointing the bone at this fella. What if fate didn't smile on us on that or those particular days?

What makes Australia such a great place to live and fly also gives us some thought processes which encourage this sort of thing to happen. One of them is our nationally most used phrase - 'she'll be right'

:ouch:

[Howard Hughes]

Regardless of what else went on, the fuel situation has us all stumped Jabba! :ooh:

[Compylot]

No prob OWEN, I will post the private message you sent me.



****wit
Well, compylot,

READ THE ******* POST I MADE ****WIT.

I didn't make any judgements, and I said IF that's what happened hang your head in shame ****WIT!

Feel free to post this message on the thread involved, I didn't because it will be pulled.

And where have I made judgements on emergency situations?

You are a complete dead**** mate, I post on stuff I know the facts of unlike your good self http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Your attempt at defending yourself because you said IF, has no bearing on the FACT that you are making sweeping statements criticizing how a human being reacted in an extremely horrific, stressful, unpredictable and time critical situation of escaping a rapidly sinking aircraft in the dark!

Are the youth of today so shallow minded that they can't comprehend this?

As for a history of 'sweeping' statements that OWEN makes in regard to cabin evacuations and how we must all hope that such a cool headed hero like OWEN will be in charge should such an even occur,
http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/184496-cabin-crew-lifesavers.html

I think OWEN, the very wise words of advice you were given about your interpretation of an aircraft evacuation back in August 2005 have the same relevance in the context of your latest drivel;

Until your dealing with it best not to criticize others. Unless you have, you just never know how your going to react. (OzzieO)

and OWENS response;
If you don't know how well you will deal with it, you should not be in that position in the first place?
:ugh:

You obviously know how you would deal with an emergency like this OWEN, what a hero!

pick the wheat from the chaff tool, there are quite a few pilots here who've obviously operated to the island.

I'm sure there is OWEN, however it is quite obvious that you are NOT one of these pilots.

Thanks again OWEN, I don't need to resort to childish outbursts, private messages and name calling, just statements of facts. :D

[morno]

I wouldn't worry Owen, Compylot (is that a shortened way of writing "Computer Pilot"?) is just looking for someone to throw **** on.

Are the youth of today so shallow minded that they can't comprehend this?


This coming from someone who has their age as 19? :confused::confused:

Compylot,
If you think that you would be unable to think logically in the event of an emergency, please don't fly around any of my family. I know one of the first instincts of any human being is their own survival (well it was of this guy anyway, once the aircraft was sinking. Not so sure when he was considering his fuel load), but this guy also had a responsibility to his passengers and fellow crew for their safety and survival. He was, afterall, the "Pilot in Command".

I would like to think that if I were sinking in my aircraft, and I had other people onboard who may not have known where the exits were as well as myself, then I'd take the 30 seconds or so, to ensure they were all directed as best as possible towards the exits. If I didn't, it would be something that dwells on my mind for quite some time if someone died because of my negligence! Passenger briefings are required of course, but I think of them more as directions for if I'm incapacitated. In the event of an emergency, the PIC is still responsible for everyone's safety.

For those who have asked, CAO 82.0 refers to ANYONE flying an aircraft under an AOC. There is then an additional reference for anyone flying an aircraft under an AOC, that is carrying out passenger carrying charter to Norfolk. So regardless of your operation (be it Airwork, Charter, RPT), you must have alternate fuel for Norfolk.

Checkboard does bring up an interesting point though. Why is this requirement not contained on the approach plates for Norfolk, under the Alternate minima's?

morno

[Capt Claret]

Typical of Dunnunda in recent years, we have polarized views and name calling, it seems, because people can't argue a point without calling one anothe names, throwing insults, or posting the content of PMs. :{

Don't you know that as soon as you call some one a name, you've basically lost the argument. :ugh:

[prospector]

" How dare you make judgement??!"

If its good for the goose, then surely the gander can as well.


"I'm not really surprised by some of the self absorbed, inward and egotistical holier than thou drivel being posted here, but actually seeing it makes me sick to the core."

Is that not making judgement on previous posts??

There is a lot of statements many people would not agree with on this thread, but does that make it drivel?

Frankly I would say some of the content of your posts is sanctimonious drivel, but I havent because what would that achieve?.

[Pinky the pilot]

Typical of Dunnunda in recent years, we have polarized views and name calling, it seems, because people can't argue a point without calling one anothe names, throwing insults, or posting the content of PMs.

Quite correct Clarrie.:sad:
Which is why so many possibly informative and interesting threads seem to come to abrupt ends. For the sake of actually learning something I really hope that in this instance this thread will continue.

So, will a few ppruners just calm down a bit please!

[tail wheel]

Typical of Dunnunda in recent years, we have polarized views and name calling, it seems, because people can't argue a point without calling one anothe names, throwing insults, or posting the content of PMs.

And posting totally uninformed opinion or speculation as fact.

*CLICK*