Norfold Island - Island reserve

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Hi all,

This thread hopefully won't degenerate into a slanging match about a certain ditching - please can we keep this as a general discussion on island reserves.

The ATSB report into the Ozjet 737 slats incident has been published ( http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/788794/ao-2007-070_final.pdf ) and the thing that struck me, in parallel with the preliminary report for the Pelair ditiching, is the ATSBs continual reference to fuel planning and the requirements or otherwise to hold an alternate.

Both reports refer to TAFs - both at planning and enroute - dictating the need to hold an alternate or not. Given the requirements to hold island reserves (discussed ad nausea), this strikes me as a moot point - everyone should be holding an alternate when in CTHR or RPT categories (according to CAO82.0) unless CASA agree otherwise.

So all I can conclude, from reading the ATSB reports, is that some company ops manuals don't require an island reserve due to their ops manuals or that the requirement is regularly ignored.

In either case, following two incidents in which fuel starvation and Norfolk Island have been an issue, what is the regulator doing to fix this quite obvious problem?

I'd be interested to know, without naming names, if anyone works for a company who flies to Norfolk Island, could share what the fuel planning requirements of their ops manual is?

Cheers,

UTR.

[FOCX]

UTR:

Discussed the altn req with a Biz Jet CP friend re Norfolk. Was shown CAO/Rs re remote island reserves which stated an altn was required if RPT/Charter. I'm told that AeroMed is awk, thus not a LEGAL requirement. Also told that after Norfolk lots of companies getting calls from CASA to ask what their company Fuel Policy stated re the above, as it appears that it's a point that seems to have slipped through.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Thanks FOCX,

I understand that (at least in theory) the ditching was an AWK flight and so the CAO82 doesn't apply - my question is - should it and what is CASA doing about it (obviously something if they're ringing people up).

I also re-read CAO82 and it says that the minimum fuel can be calculated (amongst other things) by having enough fuel 'to reach THE alternate aerodrome' but can't actually see where it requires you to have AN alternate aerodrome if the weather is fine. Maybe that's the answer - it isn't actually required as long as you meet the other requirements (depressurised etc). This wouldn't seem to be in the spirit of what's intended but certainly seems to be what it says.

I forgot to add in my original post that what got me interested is that ATSB don't make any reference to this CAO or the ops manual requirements in either report and that they would be fairly fundamental to things. The Ozjet report has a safety action regarding calculating minimum fuel requirements so they've obviously looked at it.

UTR

[Capn Bloggs]

I see CASA has got the frights and is proposing to add Cocos to the "you must carry an alternate" list:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 1003OS (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100190)

[Jabawocky]

Why is it you can leave with weather not requiring an alternate, but you do not have to check prior to your PNR to see if the wx has gone below alternate minima, and then divert or return.

In this case the wx went below the alternate minima prior to TOD, and they knew it, but elected to continue rather than divert knowing they had no chance of diverting if it went pear shaped.:=. Another GOTCHA.

That requires a rule change.

[Mach E Avelli]

Some history on OzJet. When it first commenced operations to NLK the fuel policy allowed for one approach and a diversion to NOU. Computer flight plans were generated by Air New Zealand and clearly showed depressurized and engine-out ETPs. In addition to the mandatory variable and fixed reserve, each aircraft in the fleet had its own additional performance degradation fuel applied to the plan. Performance degradation for those old aircraft was about 5% on average, having been calculated from trend monitors of actual flights. Training ensured that pilots were also aware of anti-ice penalties. Aircraft never departed the mainland with less than the required fuel, often at the cost of payload. Loss of contracted payload was because senior management ignored advice from the chief pilot of the time about how much fuel would realistically have to be carried and had over-quoted on the aircraft's abilities.
That particular chief pilot (GB) departed the company at about the time that senior management implemented another flight planning system that was more optimistic. Also the performance degradations were reduced in an effort to squeeze another hundred or so kilos into the payload. It always was a very marginal operation and certainly required pilots to watch the fuel very closely - the revised policy would have only made it more critical. There was rarely the luxury of margin fuel.
Despite this, the flight in the ATSB report was able to carry out an approach and divert to NOU at reduced speed and with obvious extra drag, and yet did make it with 30 minutes fuel intact.
The crew did a great job in avoiding a ditching which - given the sea state at the time - would almost certainly have resulted in some loss of life. The passengers were indeed lucky that they had a particularly cool and experienced captain driving the show. It could have been Australia's first large jet transport crash (if you disregard the QF golf course 'incident').
Management's handling of both passengers and crew in the immediate aftermath was disgraceful, and should have resulted in CASA having them removed from their posts, but what regulation would they have used to do that?
The root cause of the OzJet incident was a tired old airframe that was inadequately inspected.

[zanzibar]

What have I missed? It seems CAO82 covers ALL flights to a Remote Island.


2.3 The minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island (my bolding) 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.
2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are:
(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
(b)the minimum amount of fuel that would, if the failure of an engine or a
loss of pressurisation were to occur during the flight, enable the
aeroplane:
(i) to fly to its destination aerodrome or to its alternate aerodrome for the
flight; and
(ii) to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 feet above that
aerodrome under standard temperature conditions; and
(iii) to land at that aerodrome.







I'm not all that familiar with the CAO's and cannot find where it says this is limited to RPT, CHTR and exempts AWK etc. Can someone point me in the right direction, please? ...................................

[Capn Bloggs]

You have missed something (my bolding):

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:

[zanzibar]

In its entirety:-

3.A.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.


Can't see that that exempts any operation, all that it does (aside from the requirements in the para's I quoted in my earlier post) is that passenger charters can't be done in a single engined aeroplane.

Para (b) above refers to "minumum safe fuel" and the definition for that is in Para 2.3 and para 2.4

Paras 2.3 and 2.4 clearly cover ALL operations.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

CAO82 only covers operations under an AOC and thus doesn't include private flights. It should therefore cover AWK, CHTR and RPT. 3A is, as stated, designed to make sure the CHTR doesn't occur in a S/E aircraft and so I can conclude that AWK can be.

So, back to the ditching - the flight must have required an alternate regardless of it's classification. Or am I missing something and why do the ATSB reports on both Pelair and Ozjet not make mention of this?

UTR

[down3gr33ns]

From CAO 82.1


Conditions on Air Operators’ Certificates authorising charter operations and
aerial work operations
1 Application of conditions
1.1 This section applies to certificates authorising charter operations and aerial work.
1.2 For the purposes of paragraph 28BA (1) (b) of the Act, each certificate authorising
charter operations and aerial work operations is subject to the condition that the
obligations set out in this section are complied with.
1.3 The condition and obligations set out in this section are in addition to the conditions
set out in section 82.0.


Of significance is sub-para 1.3 - significant as it doesn't exclude these types of operations from CAO 82.0.

the ditching was an AWK flight and so the CAO82 doesn't apply

Sorry, UTR, from your post no. 3, don't agree.

It should therefore cover AWK, CHTR and RPT

and

the flight must have required an alternate regardless of it's classification

Now, UTR, we are in agreement.

It's pretty simple, all operations (under an AOC) to a remote island require an alternate.

[Dehavillanddriver]

The remote island provisions of CAO 82.0 only apply to charter flights.

As Capn Bloggs as correctly pointed out these are the provisions that are applicable.

"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."

The details contained in section 2 are the interpretations of the clauses contained elsewhere in the order.

I can assure you that RPT does not require an alternate when operating to a remote island.

[Capt Fathom]

Hasn't this been massdebated on a previous thread?

[404 Titan]

I think some here are interpreting the CAO’s incorrectly. The heading for CAO 82.0 par 3A clearly states that it is applicable only to pax carrying charter operations. It does not cover pvt, awk or RPT though most rpt operators will probably have something in their CASA accepted ops manuals that will cover fuel requirements to the 3 remote island airports in Australia. CAO 82.0, par 2 “Interpretation” is a definition section and is generic in nature. It is incorrect to interpret the definitions as automatically applying to all categories of operation. They clearly don’t evidenced by some of the definitions contained within them.



Section 82.0
2 Interpretation
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.

2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are:
(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

(b) the minimum amount of fuel that would, if the failure of an engine or a
loss of pressurisation were to occur during the flight, enable the aeroplane:
(i) to fly to its destination aerodrome or to its alternate aerodrome for the
flight;

and

(ii) to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 feet above that
aerodrome under standard temperature conditions;

and

(iii) to land at that aerodrome.

2.4.1 An amount of fuel mentioned in paragraph 2.4 is to be worked out by using:
(a) if the aeroplane is a transport category aircraft — the performance data,
and the fuel consumption data, for the aeroplane contained in the
aeroplane’s flight manual;

or

(b) in any other case:
(i) the performance data for the aeroplane provided by the manufacturer
of the aircraft’s airframe or contained in the aeroplane’s flight
manual, the operations manual of the aeroplane’s operator or the
pilot’s operating handbook for the aeroplane;

and

(ii) the fuel consumption data for the aeroplane obtained from 1 of the
sources mentioned in sub-subparagraph (i) or provided by the
manufacturer of the aeroplane’s engines; or, if any of those data need to be amended because of the issue of a supplemental type certificate for the aeroplane, those data as so amended;

or

(c) in all cases — the performance data, and the fuel consumption data, for
the aeroplane obtained in the course of a flight test of the aeroplane
carried out in an approved manner.

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; (This is self explanatory).

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” (refer to par 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1 regarding the definition of “ Minimum Safe Fuel” and how it needs to be calculated for a pax carrying charter flight) 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. (The alternate can not be Christmas Island, Lord Howe Island or Norfolk Island).

[AerocatS2A]

So all I can conclude, from reading the ATSB reports, is that some company ops manuals don't require an island reserve due to their ops manuals or that the requirement is regularly ignored. The ops manuals don't require it. They'd have something that supposedly has an equivalent level of safety including raised alternate minimums, extended time buffers for the purposes of assessing the requirements for an alternate, and a requirement to check the TAF prior to the PNR. None of these requirements really account for the possibility of a TAF being completely wrong or being amended sometime after the PNR though.

[down3gr33ns]

404 Titan and DHD,

How do you reconcile, this

The remote island provisions of CAO 82.0 only apply to charter flights.



and this

It does not cover pvt, awk or RPT

with this? (my bolding)


Section 82.0
Air Operators’ Certificates — applications for certificates and general
requirements

1 Application
1.1 This Part applies to Air Operators’ Certificates authorising aerial work operations, charter operations and regular public transport operations and sets out conditions to which such certificates are subject for the purposes paragraph 28BA (1) (b) of the Act..



And, for reference (again, my bolding):


CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 28BA

General conditions

(1) An AOC has effect subject to the following conditions:
(a) the condition that sections 28BD (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28bd.html), 28BE (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28be.html), 28BF (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28bf.html), 28BG (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28bg.html) and 28BH (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28bh.html) are complied with;
(aa) the conditions subject to which the AOC has effect because of section 28BAA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28baa.html);
(ab) the condition that section 28BI (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28bi.html) is complied with in relation to each operation, covered by the AOC, to which that section applies;
(b) any conditions specified in the regulations or Civil Aviation Orders (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s3.html#civil_aviation_orders);
(c) any conditions imposed by CASA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s3.html#casa) under section 28BB. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s28bb.html)







Para 3.A requirements are in addition to the general requirements of CAO 82.

CAO 82.1 places further requirements on charter and aerial work operations to those required under CAO 82.

The trouble seems to be that these sections are being read in isolation and not in their entirety as they are intended.



I can assure you that RPT does not require an alternate when operating to a remote island.

DHD, please assure me with some evidence because I haven't found any.

I cannot believe you are stating that, if I charter a B58 etc and fill it with 6 people people for a trip to Norfolk Island they need an alternate whereas an RPT B737 full of people for the same destination would not (not withstanding any CASA approved Ops Manual provisions) but would if it was charter. That is simply nonsensical.

[404 Titan]

down3gr33ns

Section 82.0 is a general section outlining what is required of AWK, CHT & RPT ops. Subsection 3A is "an addition" in that it only applies to CHT as its title states. Go and speak to CASA and an aviation lawyer if you don’t believe me or HDH but as a former ATO I can assure you that you are interpreting the CAO’s incorrectly. AWK and RPT don’t require an alternate for a remote island destination unless it is in the operator’s ops manual and/or CASA has directed them to carry one. It is an idiotic situation I agree but that is the way the rules are written by CASA. If they had meant for the rule to apply to AWK and RPT ops it would have stated it in subsection 3A.

[dodo whirlygig]

404, I fail to see that CAO82 doesn't apply to charter or airwork. It may be a general requirment as you say, but is nonetheless applicable despite it's generality. As the title clearly says in another's earlier post

This Part applies to Air Operators’ Certificates authorising aerial work operations, charter operations and regular public transport operations and sets out conditions to which such certificates are subject

Sure 3A is only applicable to charter, but adds to the requirements of CAO82.

Seeing CAO82 does apply to these sorts of operation (otherwise why would it be in the title), then certain requirements have to be met - and they are, as per para 2.3 (a) a certain amount of fuel as approved by CASA and in the ops manual ,or, (b) an alternate irrespective of the weather.

No, an alternate is not always required as there is a way to avoid this (para 2.3 (a), however I would summise that most operators taking advantage of this would probably require more than just the 10 or 15%, 30 or 45 minutes for such operations, possibly some Island Reserve on top. The general requirements of CAO82 nonetheless apply irrespective of a which fuel policy and irregardless of it being RPT, AWK or CHTR.


If they had meant for the rule to apply to AWK and RPT ops it would have stated it in subsection 3A.

It is stated, in the applicability preamble to CAO 82, quite clearly. By extension of your logic, then RPT could be done in a single to a remote island, because it isn't stated otherwise in that section - just that a charter has to have >one engine. We all know that is not the case. As has been said elsewhere, you have to read all of the CAO and not selective pieces.

[Dehavillanddriver]

No - you are reading the components of section 2 in isolation and applying them to the whole CAO.

Section 2 is the interpretative section which means that it provides detail to the content of the order - so where the order calls up "minimum safe fuel" such as in 3A1 there is some form of explanation to what that means.

Just because something is in the interpretative section does not mean that it is applicable to the whole order.

Trust me I have had this discussion in some length with the appropriate people and I can assure you that the remote island provisions are currently only applicable to passenger carrying charter flights.

[404 Titan]

dodo whirlygig

Sure 3A is only applicable to charter, but adds to the requirements of CAO82.

No it doesn't. That is an incorrect interpretation. I suggest you and others here that don't accept DHD and my word go and ask CASA.

CASA Operations Sydney Region (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91626)

[puff]

So an a/c ended up in the water with people bobbing in the ocean and the pilot 'basically' did it by the book and broke no aviation law and was carrying 'sufficient' fuel from a legal point of view.

Wonder if the 'pax, dr and nurse' were given this info before boarding that if the weather turned poor that they were going to be swimming ?

[404 Titan]

puff

I don’t think DHD or myself have said the rule is a sensible one. It is what it is because that is the way CASA, for who knows what reason, wrote it. Maybe some serious questions need to be asked of CASA as to why the differences.

[puff]

Never said you or DHD did 404 - just points out as you said what a joke the regs are.

Crazy to think that the 'pax' on a aeromed business jet sized aircraft have been given less safety standard than if you were chartering the same aircraft.

If you fly on a 'limited' category of aircraft you are legally informed that the aircraft you are travelling in doesn't meet 'standards' as per most aircraft. Surely 'pax' of any standards should be aware that by flying under 'airwork' they are flying with less safety standards.

We all safely jump on an RPT aircraft and safely assume 'correctly' that on a BNE-PER flight that in the event of bad WX in perth that were not going to be swimming in the Indian.

Proves one thing - the CAOs and CARs are poorly written, full of holes and extremely hard to read unless u have a legal degree.

[slats11]

I find it concerning that after many months, presumably experienced pilots here are still struggling to agree exactly what the regulations mean, and when and how they should be applied. How is an individual pilot supposed to know if the regulations are so ambiguous?

Hopefully the final ATSB report makes some recommendations that encourage CASA to review and simplify these regulations. I wouldn't hold my breath however.

[zanzibar]

Go and speak to CASA and an aviation lawyer if you don’t believe me

Did just that (almost) - not an aviation lawyer per se, but to a lawyer interested in flying. His reading of the CAO's is that CAO 82 certainly applies to Aerial Work, Charter and RPT. In all other CAO's - 82.1 (Charter and Aerial Work), 82.3 (low capacity RPT) and 82.5 (high capacity RPT), - "they are unquestionably linked to the requirements of CAO 82.0 in every case by virtue of their respective Applicability Provisions."

He quotes these:

"Part 82 of the CAOs specifies conditions on AOCs and Civil Aviation Order 82.0 (CAO 82.0) contains the general conditions on all AOCs."

and

"Under paragraph 28BA　(1)　(b) of the Act, an AOC has effect subject to any conditions specified in CAR 1988 or the Civil Aviation Orders (the CAOs)."

(These statements are lifted from the Commonwealth Govt's Law site. (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument.))

His reasoned deduction (although the armchair experts will probably challenge this) is that "although paras 2.3 and 2.4 are interpretations, they form the basis and intent of any conditions as applicable. Further, para 2.3 is applicable to all categories herein mentioned by virtue of the type of flight to which this paragraph refers i.e an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island. "

In discussion, his last statement means that if an Operations Manual doesn't specify otherwise and the provisions in 2.3 (b) apply then an alternate is required.

He's a watcher of these pages and does have the thick skin of a lawyer, so let the flak begin. But, please, don't shoot the messenger.

[Dehavillanddriver]

I give up ........................

[down3gr33ns]

I can assure you that RPT does not require an alternate when operating to a remote island.

Well, DHD, that's hardly an assurance ..........................

[Gnd Power]

Gotta agree with zazibar and his lawyer mate on this one!

No matter how much of a dogs breakfast the Aussie CAO, Regs, Act etc are, you really only have to look at the intent of the act - SAFETY.

I am quite sure that a few penalty points, etc, (as per the regs, etc) will pale into insignificance when the real lawsuits start.

I also wager that CASA will have a congo line of Defence Lawyers at Court to ensure their exposure is minimised.

Essentially, bad leglislation does not absolve duty of care.... at least in the world of getting money for bad decisions.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Have a look at this NPRM

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os.pdf

In it CASA is proposing that the alternate requirements be extended to AWK and RPT. Now I am no expert but I would expect that if CASA have issued a NPRM seeking to extend the rules to AWK and RPT then CASA do not believe that the current rules apply to AWK and RPT.

Here is the summary

Key Proposed Changes (to CAO 82.0)
• Designate Cocos (Keeling) Island as a remote island in the definition of ‘remote island’ in
paragraph 2.1.
• Remove the provision in paragraph 2.3 that allows an operator not to carry fuel for diversion to
an alternate aerodrome if the operator’s operations manual provides for such a procedure.
• Amend the meaning of minimum safe fuel to require the calculation of fuel for diversion to an
alternate aerodrome in the event of a loss of pressurisation coupled with the failure of an
engine, in addition to either of the individual failures.
• Insert a requirement in subsection 3A that a pilot in command, who is subject to the conditions
of the section, must nominate an alternate aerodrome (as defined in the CARs).
• Extend the conditions of subsection 3A to apply to passenger-carrying aerial work flights.
• Extend the conditions of subsection 3A to apply to passenger-carrying RPT flights.
• Make provision for CASA to approve an operator to not comply with subsection 3A, subject to
conditions which would not adversely affect safety.

[404 Titan]

zanzibar

Your lawyer MATE doesn’t know what he is talking about. I suggest if he is so sure of his convictions he speak to the CASA lawyers. You know the ones that wrote the rules in the first place and are given the responsibility in court to enforce them. He/she is wrong. As I have said in the past in any court case there will be at least two lawyers with each one representing a side in a legal argument. Each and every time at least 50% of these lawyers will be wrong. Your mate falls into that 50%.

[AerocatS2A]

This seems reasonably clear. Subsection 2 is simply explaining the meaning of the various terms. 2.3 is explaining what the term "minimum safe fuel" means in relation to flights to remote islands. At this stage the rule applies to nobody, it is just the interpretation of the phrase "minimum safe fuel." So you need to find where the term "minimum safe fuel" is used in the body of the CAO. It is only used in paragraph 3A.1 which only applies to passenger carrying charter ops. Therefore the minimum safe fuel requirements of 2.3 etc only applies to passenger carrying charter ops.

[spinnerman]

I agree with AerocatS2A. My understanding is that RPT ports must be approved by CASA and these will be listed on the operators AOC. The approval process allows CASA to stipulate any specific operational requirements such as alternate planning and minimum fuel req's. CHTR ops do not require ports to be approved, therefor CASA have given special mention to passenger carrying charter ops to ensure minimum safety standards are met. My impression is that the regs allow airwork and non passenger CHTR flights to operate to lower levels of safety as the general public aren't normaly exposed to these types of operations.

[Jabawocky]

So an a/c ended up in the water with people bobbing in the ocean and the pilot 'basically' did it by the book and broke no aviation law and was carrying 'sufficient' fuel from a legal point of view.


I do not believe that is true. He broke some.

Of course had he declared an EMERGENCY, had he used a runway aligned approach (whether current or his F/O was current or not) the a/c would have landed on a runway and the most this would have done is raise an investigation into why their ops maual was wriiten the way it was and if a rule change was needed. Thats not what happened.

[zanzibar]

404T, you are entitled to your opinion, that's our democracy, and you consider that other opinion wrong.

Possibly about as wrong asthe CASA lawyers. You know the ones that wrote the rules in the first place who wrote such poor legislation initially, obviously inadequate and so unclear such that it takes pages of argument here to try and understand what they meant.

As I said, don't shoot the messenger. Time you came down off your lofty steed, methinks.


DHD, why didn't you bring that NPRM forward sooner - would've saved lots of debate and certainly resolves the matter for those of us having difficulty reaching a proper understanding ............................

[404 Titan]

zanzibar

I may not agree with 3A but it isn’t unclear at all. It is a very straight forward and concise rule. Only those that are over thinking the rule have a problem understanding it. My advice to you is to “Keep It Simple”. As for the lofty steed you have asked me to come down from? I don’t have one but if I think someone is wrong I will tell them.

[Capn Bloggs]

Zanzibar,
DHD, why didn't you bring that NPRM forward sooner - would've saved lots of debate and certainly resolves the matter for those of us having difficulty reaching a proper understanding ............................
I did that, in post 4, triggering the current discussion.

[Roger Greendeck]

It is always concerning when rules are so badly written that a significant minority (or worse still a majority) interpret the rules differently to what the drafters intended. When you have to ask and the answer is 'what we meant to say was...' as an operator you have a big problem. Despite what CASA may or may not have intended if you are taken to court following an accident you can expect to plaintiff's lawyers to be arguing what is written not what was intended.

[Capn Bloggs]

It is always concerning when rules are so badly written that a significant minority (or worse still a majority) interpret the rules differently to what the drafters intended.
And that is what CASA is attempting to address with this NPRM. It could, of course, be viewed as a cop-out: "let's make the rules simple to make our life as regulator easier" but is Cocos really such a problem? Runway closure? How often has that happened at short notice? Pull up in half the runway? Total Navaid failure? What about aircraft equipped with TSO 146 GPS gear that will never have a problem (given that you'd never use the ground aids anyway). Fair enough if you're not GPS equipped but what if you are? Engine failure and depressurised as well? Is that rule going to be applied to other, "normal" ops as well?

I'm not expressing a view either way, just saying that simplicity can penalise unnecessarily. The responses to the NPRM will be interesting. Big aeroplane operators will say "no problem". Littlies will say "Yikes! We'll have to go via XMX every time".

[AerocatS2A]

I'm not expressing a view either way, just saying that simplicity can penalise unnecessarily. The responses to the NPRM will be interesting. Big aeroplane operators will say "no problem". Littlies will say "Yikes! We'll have to go via XMX every time".
And there'll be some who just can't go at all because they can't carry an alternate for YPXM.

[Marauder]

IMHFO it applies to passenger carrying charter only,

but before everyone gets too upset about the RPT scenario,

remember CASA has to agree to their fuel policy in the ops manual, which I hope would include as a minimum the requirement for a non remote island reserve.

[mauswara]

I operated ozjet 73's for 2.5 yrs,(& as a result am well acqainted with NLK ops) it is my understanding we (Hi Cap/RPT) were bound by CAO82.0 para.(2.3) & 2.4 (Zanzibar nailed it in post #7)to carry an alternate on ALL flts,(If "petroleum challenged" then PNR back to wherever prior to committing.) regardless of actual &/or forecast wx.Given NLK's "notoriety" re:WX,CAO #1 (ie,use common sense) would dictate always "keeping the back door open" when planning to "The ROCK".In the wake of the "slat" incident,it was suggested we "fuel plan" to NOU,as Altn.with the gear stuck down to allow worst case scenario,I think thats where the "depress.+ eng. out" comes into the new rule change.

[Capn Bloggs]

mauswara,
it is my understanding we (Hi Cap/RPT) were bound by CAO82.0 para.(2.3) & 2.4 (Zanzibar nailed it in post #7)to carry an alternate on ALL flts,(If "petroleum challenged" then PNR back to wherever prior to committing.)
Bit of a contradiction there. Unless fuel challenged, you'd always be taking extra fuel for tankering purposes; altn not a problem. If fuel-challenged, it doesn't make sense to be required to carry an alternate only until PNR. Either you have to or you don't. If 2.3 didn't have any special CASA requirements eg exempting you from carrying an alternate, then you'd have to. That is the crux of this (soon to be old) argument. What'd your CASA-approved ops manual say on NLK fuel policy?

[404 Titan]

mauswara
it is my understanding we (Hi Cap/RPT) were bound by CAO82.0 para.(2.3) & 2.4 (Zanzibar nailed it in post #7)to carry an alternate on ALL flts
Only because CASA made your company include it as a requirement in their Ops manual. Don’t think for a moment your company did it through the kindness of their heart. There was no legal requirement for Ozjet to carry an alternate for Norfolk until CASA directed them to comply with 2.3 and 2.4 and have it included in their Ops manual. This would be the case also for Qlink operations to Lord Howe as I believe they carry fuel back to Coffs Harbour.

[Rose_Thorns]

Despite an inbuilt, natural reluctance, here we are on Prune. Whoo da thunk it !!.
Anyway – I am over the pointless bleating over what CASA should, or should not have approved. IMHO:-
There must be a way of defeating the great Australian whining, slavish, pedantic reliance on 'legislation" as the only cure all for industry ills. (Referring particularly to this thread) Legal does not always make it safe (except for the judge), safe does not always mean legal. Lawyers nearly always get paid, no matter what the outcome.
This is not rocket science. Prior to a 3000 nm flight over water, surely, despite whatever the CAO, COM, FCOM or, your daily horoscope says, you would need to be assured that the '101' (basic flight training) rules were followed.
101, Is the back door open?. Can I get to "Kickatinalong" on one donk?. What if fuel for cruise at Fl 380 is adequate, can I do it at Fl 140?. Where is the freezing level?. How much ice will I have to carry?. What about pressurisation failure and oxygen endurance?. How long will one generator keep beating the ice?. What is the certificated oil endurance ?. What level of icing is the airframe certified for?. What is the maximum certified time for this engine at MCP?
All valid questions for certification and, a PIC should be able to answer, prior to departure.
102, Back door 'not so' open – re think – re plan – re evaluate - adjust payload, fuel uplift or route to ensure that the payload can be safely delivered. Not quasi legally, but safely.
103, Weather and NOTAM evaluated, what impact will this information have on the flight and, the ability to finalize the flight in a safe, managed and even a legal manner.
104, Do I really care about doing the job properly as a PIC or; am I a slave to whatever company policy (culture) is in vogue at the present time.
105, What can I monitor to ensure that (i) nothing gets hit, (ii) nothing get broken (ii) that I get to the pub and turn a rough day into a great story; not to bloody rags or an unscheduled dip in the big pond.
All valid. All CASA can do is satisfy their current policy and enforce compliance. The more prescriptive the rules the higher the criminal charge count. They can, they do and they have translated a COM breach into a criminal charge. Why? that is their problem.
As a PIC you need to be able, despite the rhetoric and rules to be able to safely deliver a payload to it's destination. To do this, if you have no other rules to follow, you are obliged to follow the rules of 'common sense'. This is really what pilots get paid for.
Remember 101 – 105, I was asked these questions more years ago than I care to remember prior to departing on a first pre CPL navigation flight.

Tailwinds_Rose.

[404 Titan]

Rose_Thorns

Your post is all very good in theory but the reality is that operators have been operating aircraft out to these remote islands for years legally without carrying an alternate. It would be a very brave PIC indeed who insisted on carrying mainland fuel or worse still refusing to operate a flight based on the fact he would like to carry an alternate but there was no legal or operational reason for doing so. When CAO 82.0 Subsection 3A1 is changed a lot of operators will have to acquire new aircraft to complete the tasks as the old ones simply won’t be able to carry the new fuel requirement and carry the payload. I can just see some of the replies to CASA from companies affected by this NPRM.

[AerocatS2A]

404 Titan, agreed in principle, however I have refused a flight because I thought a mainland alternate would be prudent even though it wasn't legally required by our ops manual. No one has questioned the decision--yet, it was fairly recent. I think if you are going to pull the PiC card, you just need to be very clear on what you are doing and why you are doing it. That way you can confidently back up your decision to management if required.

[Mach E Avelli]

Please go back to my earlier post. The original OzJet Ops Manual fuel policy required an alternate for NLK because it quite clearly was one of the remote islands referred to in regulations. Albeit, alternate fuel was not planned with the gear stuck down, or with a slat wrapped around the wing, as no regulation at the time required such contingencies to be considered. 'Build-up' fuel was also shown on the CFP to cover any shortfall for the depressurized case. If regulation is now proposing that we cover gear stuck down, methinks a) it is a kneejerk and b) we will all have to go by boat because not too many aircraft of suitable size will be able to comply.
The OzJet operation was RPT, whereas the Pelair operation was not - hence they did not carry an alternate. Whether they should have has been adequately discussed in its own thread.

[404 Titan]

Mach E Avelli

The original Ozjet ops manual required alternate fuel for NLK because CASA would have directed them to have it in there not because the regulation required it. With what appears from your comments regarding the management there do you honestly think they would have volunteered to have it included unless they were pushed by CASA?

[Capn Bloggs]

Mach,
If regulation is now proposing that we cover gear stuck down, methinks a) it is a kneejerk and b) we will all have to go by boat because not too many aircraft of suitable size will be able to comply.

To put your mind at ease, that is not the proposal. It is proposed that fuel for Depress with one engine be considered.

[Mach E Avelli]

Of course the fuel policy was only put in there because it had to be in order to get an international AOC. Operators rarely voluntarily 'gold-plate' their activities if it will impact on payload or put them at a disadvantage against their competitors.
Point taken Bloggsy - I was being a bit tongue in cheek. In fact the one-engine inop depressurized fuel requirement could actually be LESS than the all engines depressurized case - would depend on aircraft type.