Norfolk ditching- license back? [Archive]

Sonny Hammond

7th Aug 2010, 03:47

Poor preflight planning, inadequate decision making and running out of fuel as a result, are lots of things. I do have an opinion on his actions, just like all you guys.

But do they alone justify license suspension?

If you haven't broken a reg, what you guys are suggesting is that the opinion of a desk jockey in casa can get your license pulled.

Dangerous territory.

If you plan a flight with the legal fuel requirements and unforecast wx means your destination (and alternate if you have one) become impossible to land at (legally or otherwise- pilot in commands authority to break rules if reqd to keep the flight out of the water/dirt applies here) then does this culmination of events mean your license is done?

So, what I am asking here is NOT what you think about this guy, ditching or cleo magazine BUT:

What about the LEGAL situation that applies to this PILOTS ability to work.

If he didn't fulfill his legal obligation in other areas of the flight well ok, thats the question.

Does anyone know why the guys license is pulled when the reg he/his company was operating to has been changed by CASA to prevent a recurrence of this accident?

Horatio Leafblower

7th Aug 2010, 04:56

CAR 233 Responsibility of the pilot in command before flight

(1) The pilot in command of a flight must not commence a flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such action as is necessary to ensure, that:
...
(d) the fuel supplies are sufficient for a particular flight; ...

CAR 234 Fuel Requirements

(1) THe pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.
Penalty: 50 penalty units

(2) An operator of an aircraft (..subatantially same as para 1)

(3) For the purposes of these regulations, for determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft ...was sufficient, a court must tke into account the following matters:
(horribly abbreviated:)
(a) the distance
(b) the weather
(c) the possibility of forced diversion to an alternate, delays in landing clearance, ATC re-routing, DP, and OEI; and
(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the purposes of this regulation.

(4) An offence against (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability

CAR 269 Variation, suspension or cancellation of licence, certificate or authority

(1)...CASA may...vary, suspend or cancel the licence...where CASA is satisfied that one or more of the following grounds exist, namely:
(c) that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has failed in his or her duty with respect to any matter affecting the safe navigation navigation or operation of an aircraft; or
(d) ...(etc)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you run out of fuel, you weren't carrying legal fuel. End of story.

The operation's fuel requirements weren't subject to CAO 82.x and yes maybe CASA has realised that is a loophole. HOWEVER, nobody has their licence cancelled, supended or revoked for breaching a CAO but for breaching a Reg or the Act.

As a group of professionals we (GA pilots) cut ourselves and our mates too much slack. Our expectations of our own conduct, and that of our peers, is too low.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr James on a personal* level. However, there is no denying that the planning for, and conduct of Mr James' last flight was below the standard for a professional pilot, regardless of when some subordinate piece of delegated legislation might say.

*Many years ago now my flying career spent several years in the wilderness following an act of purest stupidity. I deserved it. I had to go back to square 1 and re-prove myself to my peers, my mates, CASA, my family and myself. Character building, but unpleasant. One star.

neville_nobody

7th Aug 2010, 05:10

If you run out of fuel, you weren't carrying legal fuel. End of story.

No that is not correct. There is one word used in all those CARS which kills your theory.

CAR 233 Responsibility of the pilot in command before flight

(1) The pilot in command of a flight must not commence a flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such action as is necessary to ensure, that:

CAR 234 Fuel Requirements

(1) THe pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

So if at the planning stage you have enough fuel to get to your destination legally then the flight is legal. If the BOM have stuffed up the forecast or you get some weird weather set in, that does not mean your flight is now illegal, it just means you have to find a solution....of which a ditching or precautionary landing is one option.

If this guys had his license pulled then I suggest he get a lawyer and take CASA to court.

There have been plenty of instances of commercial jet operations getting caught out in perth......does that mean those flights are illegal and all the captains should be suspended too??

Horatio Leafblower

7th Aug 2010, 05:26

G'day Nev

I guess I look at different words:

CAR 233 Responsibility of the pilot in command before flight

(1) The pilot in command of a flight must not commence a flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such action as is necessary to ensure, that:
...
(d) the fuel supplies are sufficient for a particular flight; ...

And then in this one:

CAR 234 Fuel Requirements

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

You say:
There have been plenty of instances of commercial jet operations getting caught out in perth......does that mean those flights are illegal and all the captains should be suspended too??

...I would suggest they have landed the aeroplane at an alternate, for which they were carrying sufficient fuel, and not ditched it at night in bad weather putting in peril the lives of all on board :=

neville_nobody

7th Aug 2010, 05:59

This exercise goes to show how poorly worded aviation law really is!!:mad:

CAR 233 is referring to the planning stage, so what happens after push back is irrelevant

You could also argue in CAR 234 that reasonable steps were taken to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient fuel. As long as you keep yourself availed of the appropriate weather, and recalculate your fuel on arrival that is considered to be 'reasonable steps' If the forecasts says CAVOK all the way then you get the ATIS and it's broken at 100' you have taken reasonable steps to ensure you have enough fuel. The fact that the TTF changed doesn't make you in breach of those CARS.

Off the top of my head there was a 747 on a domestic flight going to Perth who went past the PNR then the forecast changed to fog. I think they just shot the approach and landed after declaring an emergency.

QF A330 into SYD did the same thing got the latest weather through their descent PNR for Canberra wx was ok for landing. When they contacted approach the aerodrome was fogged in and they autolanded.

There was some other event in Perth 10+ years ago where the wx changed at the last minute and they were tossing up ditching near Rottnest but ended up autolanding. I think that one might be more urban myth than fact though.

Horatio Leafblower

7th Aug 2010, 06:25

It's an interesting exercise in perception vs reality.

Extraordinary outcome = hero

Same circumstances, bad outcome = villain.

Does the (relatively) good outcome from the autoland events you refer to make us less critical of the acts and omissions which led to the event?

Tony Kern wrote an excellent entry in his blog in which he compared the Hudson River ditching with a very similar "event" in Eastern Europe, which makes exactly this point. The outcomes of these events can be determined by completely random factors such as water temperature or the availability of boats to rescue your pax. Without taking anything away from Sullenberger, he points out that the failure to hit the ditch switch may have caused a very different outcome in only slightly different circumstances.

Although I disagree in my interpretation, I understand the point you're making about "planning". Should he perhaps have planned for an alternate? Isn't that the crux of it?

waren9

7th Aug 2010, 06:36

Horatio

Highlighting parts only and reading them out of the context of the whole will clearly give you a different meaning. As you have just demonstrated.

Take the CAR parts in their entireity (sp?) to get the correct intent when they were written.

Both the exerpts quoted above include "...must not commence a flight..." in their text.

Did the guy discharge his duties preflight? Did he then discharge his duties with due care and dilligence during the flight?

By your own logic, if you are caught out with unforecast weather unable to land safely then automatically the PIC has committed an offence.

Whether or not he actually deserves a licence is another question. How CASA would try and paint it in court is another question also.

neville_nobody

7th Aug 2010, 07:12

Should he perhaps have planned for an alternate? Isn't that the crux of it?

Should have doesn't stand up in court. Either there was a legal requirement for an alternate or there isn't one.

It is interesting to note that company's suddenly become very good at interpreting aviation law when you want to talk about offloading pax or freight for some comfort fuel. If there is no requirement there is no requirement.

Does the (relatively) good outcome from the autoland events you refer to make us less critical of the acts and omissions which led to the event?

No. In both those instances the captains operated wholly within company SOPs, the AIPs, and the CARS yet they still nearly ended up ditching. As far as I can remember there is not one thing either of them could have done to change the outcome. So you just declare an emergency and do what you have to do.

triadic

7th Aug 2010, 07:59

There was a case back in the early '70's where a MMA F28 diverted to Fitzroy Crossing early one morning when Fog rolled in at destination Broome and then Derby (almost unheard of) and he was forced to divert. A very interesting story, as I recall with the hospital staff putting the flares out at ~0300 and the aircraft arriving when there was only a single path laid. His first approach was to the wrong side of the flares.... the second approach was good, but one engine reportedly flamed out on the ground....due lack of fuel! That Capt was noted for always carrying an extra 1000lb+ for Mum & the Kids....
Under today's rules and SOP's and management policy/direction, they may have lost the a/c???. :confused:

As one senior pilot I know has said more than once... Lad, they are fuel tanks not air tanks!

PLovett

7th Aug 2010, 08:33

The ATSB report (when it eventually is released) on this matter is going to be fascinating.

Based on nothing but what I have read in the various threads dealing with the matter I suspect that it will show that when the flight departed Samoa for Norfolk Island it was legal and did not require an alternate due to weather.

I suspect that it will also show that despite the company, either having a dispensation from carrying alternate fuel to a remote island or it was not required due to the fact that the flight was under the airwork category, that it did have sufficient fuel to reach an alternate up to the point about top of descent into Norfolk Island.

The huge question in my mind is why did the pilots decide to carry on with that descent in the knowledge that the conditions at Norfolk Island had deteriorated below the alternate minima? This action committed them to landing at Norfolk Island, one way or another rather than diverting to Noumea.

Now I could easily be wrong on the last point. The pilots may not have know the weather had deteriorated until after they were committed to Norfolk Island. If that is the case then the pilot's licence should never have been pulled. If the former was the case then there is a very strong case for the CASA intervention.

Bring on the report.

PA39

7th Aug 2010, 09:03

I'm not sure of the fuel load on board at departure but it may be the case of the age old problem, carry additional fuel and perhaps be overweight and cop the wrath if you get ramped, or do you keep it all within limits and put the thing into the sea if something goes awry with the wx and stay 'legal'.

Personally i believe the onus is on the PIc to ensure he has enough fuel plus mandatory reserves plus reserves for the unexpected. Jesus its a long swim....IF you survive the ditching. Night, bad wx, low fuel status..........a sure recipe for disaster!

Sonny Hammond

7th Aug 2010, 09:20

Thank Nev, my point exactly.

Having your license pulled only is about contravention of regs or not. Not airmanship. Not woulda, shoulda or coulda.

I guess from all this discussion he hasn't got his license and if I were him i'd be getting lawyer as well.
Mind you, he probably is modelling again and making crap loads more money than he ever did as a pilot and isn't interested in flying anymore after his accident.

Who are the real idiot(s) again??:(

4Greens

7th Aug 2010, 09:56

Many moons ago:

Captain pulled in for questioning re landing in London with max possible fuel remaining.

Manager: Why did you carry that amount of fuel?

Captain: Because I couldn't get any more on!

privateer01

7th Aug 2010, 21:49

Old Saying:

Gas is better than Brains.

Al Fentanyl

7th Aug 2010, 23:21

Based on nothing but what I have read in the various threads dealing with the matter I suspect that it will show that when the flight departed Samoa for Norfolk Island it was legal and did not require an alternate due to weather.

I suspect that it will also show that despite the company, either having a dispensation from carrying alternate fuel to a remote island or it was not required due to the fact that the flight was under the airwork category, that it did have sufficient fuel to reach an alternate up to the point about top of descent into Norfolk Island.

Based on what I have read in the various threads dealing with the matter and in the preliminary report, it was a charter flight - Pelair was not the air ambulance operator, careflight was. Pelair was just a chartered aircraft supplier.

neville_nobody

7th Aug 2010, 23:27

carry additional fuel and perhaps be overweight and cop the wrath if you get ramped,

Or maybe overload the wing which then structurally fails a year later killing everyone :ugh:

PA39

7th Aug 2010, 23:33

Neville, Sorry mate, but you should take a look at the dispensations for weight on international ferry flights in light to medium aircraft. These things are miles over MTOW and its all fuel. Been there done that.

You haven't an argument with this.

43Inches

8th Aug 2010, 01:13

carry additional fuel and perhaps be overweight and cop the wrath if you get ramped,

Neville, Sorry mate, but you should take a look at the dispensations for weight on international ferry flights in light to medium aircraft. These things are miles over MTOW and its all fuel. Been there done that.

So PA39, what do you compromise to carry this extra weight?

I'll have to speak to CASA to mandate all MTOWs be increased as it must be perfectly safe to do so from your comments.

If you then arrived at your destination above MLW would you hold before landing? What if weather was approaching?

Its a ridiculous comment to say that you would compromise aircraft performance on a normal flight because the aircraft is marginal on that route for fuel. If you can't carry enough fuel to do it legally then don't do it. If the destination is known to be marginal have alternates available en-route and get up-dates on the weather enroute.

Ferrying is a completely different prospect and only operating crew are subject to the dangers.

How far above maximum weight could you go before all single engine performance is lost and you face ditching on take-off due to a failure?

puff

8th Aug 2010, 03:21

From the report at AO-2009-072 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072.aspx)
The flight crew stated that, on reaching the planned cruising altitude, the headwind gradually increased and, in response, the engine thrust settings were reduced to increase the aircraft’s range.
During the flight, meteorological information was received from Auckland Oceanic2 that indicated the weather at the island was deteriorating. The flight crew reported that they also monitored the weather reports for Norfolk Island during the flight and, at 0904, they requested the 0900 Norfolk Island automatic weather report3.
The crew subsequently received an updated weather report that was issued at 0902. The report indicated that the weather conditions had deteriorated from those forecast at the time of the flight’s departure from Apia.
At 0928, the flight crew contacted the Norfolk Island Unicom4 operator (Norfolk Unicom), advising that they were about 20 minutes from the airport. Norfolk Unicom provided an updated weather report, indicating a deterioration in the conditions to well below the landing minima5. Subsequently, the crew sought regular weather updates from Norfolk Unicom as they descended, and also requested the operator to proceed to each end of the runway to assess the weather conditions in order to supplement the official weather report.deteriorated from those forecast at the time of the flight’s departure from Apia.

At 0904 when the WX was obtained surely an immediate diversion to Noumea or Auckland wouldn't have put the a/c in the drink when it lists their 4th go-around as occuring at 1025 - so nearly an hour and a half and all at low altitude.

The pilot in command moved rearwards from the cockpit into the cabin and ascertained that the main door was not usable. Continuing rearwards to the two emergency exits in the fuselage centre section, the pilot in command opened the port emergency exit, and water immediately flowed in through the door opening. The pilot in command exited the aircraft. The copilot sustained injuries from a reported contact with the control yoke during the aircraft’s second impact with the water. The copilot was not aware of the pilot in command leaving the cockpit, and may have lost consciousness for a short period of time. The copilot experienced difficulties when attempting to find an exit route from the aircraft by the main door. The copilot then swam rearward along the fuselage, located an emergency exit door by touch, and exited the aircraft.

404 Titan

8th Aug 2010, 03:41

From the time line in the preliminary report it would appear that the PIC was in complete violation of CAR 224 par 2 & 2A involving the responsibilities of the PIC. I find it very difficult to see how he could defend himself in a court if he chose to take legal recourse against CASA in connection to his licence suspension.

KRUSTY 34

8th Aug 2010, 04:41

Once it was established that an alternate (excluding WX of course) was in fact not required for AWK operations, the question of when the PIC became aware of Norfolk deterioating to below the Alt Minima really is what all this is about.

If he did recieve the information with time to divert, then why didn't he? :ouch:

Jamair

8th Aug 2010, 05:50

Based on what I have read in the various threads dealing with the matter and in the preliminary report, it was a charter flight - Pelair was not the air ambulance operator, careflight was. Pelair was just a chartered aircraft supplier.

So it would seem that AWK provisions did not apply.......

PA39

8th Aug 2010, 06:39

43 Inches......Nothing is compromised. It is not a permanent increase, but a dispensation for the ferry. These ferry aircraft are seriously over MTOW. Yes occassionaly there is a requirement to return to the point of departure, and yes they are landed grossly over MLW. However like all good pilots, the landing is endorsed on the M/R for perusal by the LAME.

"How far above maximum weight could you go before all single engine performance is lost and you face ditching on take-off due to a failure".............. Its line ball even below MTOW in most light twins!!

"I'll have to speak to CASA "..... Please do, I'm sure you would have a direct line by now!!

43Inches

8th Aug 2010, 10:57

43 Inches......Nothing is compromised.
So you are saying that you overload an aircraft by 30% (light twins usually get around this as a dispensation for ferry) and it will not negatively affect its performance?

"How far above maximum weight could you go before all single engine performance is lost and you face ditching on take-off due to a failure".............. Its line ball even below MTOW in most light twins!!

You are quoting on a thread based on a transport certified jet. And yes it is line ball in a light twin at max, but at 30% over max weight your fate is sealed. At least at normal weights you have a chance.

Imagine if this scenario was different and he had overloaded the aircraft had a failure on take-off at V1 and went through the fence on the runway trying to continue?

How much fuel is going to be worthwhile carrying? 100kg over is going to buy no useful time in this situation the result would have been the same.

Mach E Avelli

9th Aug 2010, 00:54

A bit of thread drift here, but as regards ferrying: The so-called 'wet footprint' in a single is the entire time it is beyond gliding distance to land. The wet footprint of a piston twin will be AS A MINIMUM the entire time it is overweight. Which, from the west coast of the USA to Hawaii would be about half or more of the entire leg. With twice as many engines to fail but being only exposed to the possibility of a ditching for half the distance (until the excess weight is burned off), my attitude towards it was that the odds of going for a swim were about the same ferrying an overwight twin as a single.
Even the turboprops when overweight will have a wet footprint, but not nearly as long for the engine failure case. The depressurization case is usually more of a worry.

waren9

9th Aug 2010, 01:01

Mach

Not as bad as you might think for a twin. Many a story of twin (or four engined) bombers getting home in ground effect during the war.

Mach E Avelli

9th Aug 2010, 02:59

I spent a bit of time in the ferry game and worked sometimes with a guy who has been in the water 4 times. Twice in singles and twice in twins. The twins were both engine failures. One was a Chieftain and the other a BN2. He told me that he was able to fly the Chieftain in ground effect but the remaining engine was running so hot that he was afraid it would seize. So he elected to put it down while he still had enough control to select the wave of choice. I don't know why the Islander wouldn't fly, but guess it was also a weight issue and I don't suppose ground effect would do much for one of those anyway. From memory, the singles ran out of fuel. Back in the days before GPS when they had no real idea of the winds, running out of juice was just another part of the risk.
Back on thread - our man did have GPS, so he knew perfectly well where he was and presumably how much fuel he had left for a diversion. What he seemed to fail to compute, was the need for a diversion.

sparcap

9th Aug 2010, 04:16

PA39, you haven't an argument at all for overloading in this type of operation. Ferry and Air Work.....very different kettles of fish. If one needs to do this as standard operation, the aircraft is not suited to the task.

Whilst structurally one shouldn't compromise the wing integrity by loading extra fuel, many other factors come into play.

Neville, additional fuel (wing supported) should actually decrease spar loads, ever asked the question as to why tip tanks?

That said, rules and limitations are just that. Dispensations (as you state PA39), are just that, TEMPORARY!!:ugh:

Wally Mk2

9th Aug 2010, 07:18

An interesting debate going on here but remember there would be a LOT of A/C taking off over weight due all sorts of reasons. But that aside & perhaps going off trk here a little but without going into all the facts this mission with a dist of around 1450 nms (off the top of my head) & with an airframe capable of say around 8000 lbs of gas on dept ( I think the WW1124A can carry that with the mission requirements,med team & pax etc) I am at a loss as to why this plane ended up in the drink with no fuel IF it had have taken off with the above amount of gas & diverted when it became fairly obvious that Norfolk was questionable.
8000 lbs would give the WW around 6 hrs to dry tanks just off the top of my head in LRC with say a 100 kts H/W there should have been around 2 hrs of gas remaining upon arrival. Am not too sure how much this airframe left Apia with though so my figures here is only based of full tanks. It begs the question & hindsight is a wonderful thing of course just how much commercial pressure was on this guy/crew to 'get in'? That I believe is the burning question at the end of the day along with what level of experience is enough to conduct these risky missions.

Wmk2

kellykelpie

9th Aug 2010, 13:30

Fuel planning is risk management. It revolves around probability and likelihood of certain events occurring e.g. fog etc.

This is not a comment on the investigation but on those that think that you can always guarantee that you will have enough fuel...

Horatio Leafblower

9th Aug 2010, 13:36

there would be a LOT of A/C taking off over weight due all sorts of reasons.

OK Wally... wiith the greatest respect to you and your ilk, can you give us some legitimate reasons for ignoring the POH/MOM wrt MTOW?

The ferry exemptions as described above being (obviously) out of the question... for a CHTR or AWK op... is there ANY legit excuse for dep over MTOW??? ANY excuse? :uhoh:

illusion

9th Aug 2010, 14:15

He may get his licence back, but it does not mean he will be able to find a decent job. It would be a brave company that invited that sort of (negative) publicity

Wally Mk2

10th Aug 2010, 06:15

"HL"I think you may have miss-interpreted my wording there. Ya gotta think laterally.
A LOT of A/c would take off over the MTOW purely 'cause pilots use std weights for Pax & many would not weigh the bags etc down to the last lb or know exactly to the ltr how much gas is on board so to put it simply even though pilots do generally not intentionally T/off overweight they would do so the world over daily inc Airliners (the S.G of fuel varies so much as an Eg for large fuel uplifts) knowing full well they "think" they are within limits & the paper work says so. Simple fact of life,stop to accurately measure EVERY A/C prior to T/off & few would ever leave the ground on time:)

"illusion" I too believe he may very well fly again (if he wants to) but it's not so much who will hire him(sure the event will limit his possibilities) it's more what got this guy in this position in the first place where he felt there was no way out enroute (other than to ditch) to anyone thinking of hiring him. That's what would worry prospective employers I would imagine.

Wmk2