Originally Posted by
spinex
Quite where the boot is involved in pointing out the blindingly obvious, I fail to see. It is however increasingly tempting to apply said size12s to the tails of those who persist in trying to whitewash a set of circumstances that would earn a newly minted PPL a well deserved raspberry, never mind a CPL with paying pax in the back.
Why was he low on fuel to the point of Exhaustion? As I mentioned there could be a number of reasons that were NOT the Pilots fault. Personally I was not aware he had been let go by the company and can't remember reading that anywhere, if the case it does seem to point towards him being the source of the overall problem but without any actual facts I wouldn't be keen to stick the boot into anyone whilst there are other possbilities. As mentioned Spinex, all we know is that this was caused by Fuel Exhaustion but what we do NOT know is the events that lead to the Fuel Exhaustion, thusly putting the boot into the Crew as you seem to be doing is unwarranted at this point.
Bend Alot, it certainly seems like it was a matter of not having sufficient fuel on-board, but WHY was there insufficient fuel on board? Did the Pilot believe he had the right amount? Why did he believe so?
Lead Balloon, I don't recall seeing anything about the PIC being let go by the Operator, was that posted on the other thread or did you hear that from a source? If it was indeed a faulty Gauge that caused it then it's probably on a Maintenance Release somewhere that it has been fixed but would not have necessarily needed to be done before take off, just a dispensation sought to get it out of there to be fixed back at Broome.
Horatio, is that a video from a pax that was taken? Pretty damning if true, off that such a video didn't warrant mention in the Prelim report, seems to be a pretty glaring fact that is easily confirmed if it was presented, assuming it was presented before the report was released.
Personally, if this crew took off with a Low Fuel Light, especially from somewhere that had fuel available without any mitigating circumstances such as maintenance issues for example then sacking would be the least of their concerns and I would dare say warranted, I'd expect the same if I'd committed the same error, doesn't mean they don't deserve a second chance though, but that'll depend somewhat on how CASA decides to proceed when the investigation is completed.
Oh and Eddie did indeed clarify that he didn't see any fuel whilst he was passing by and chatted with the FO, which means there was plenty of time otherwise for fuel to have been uplifted and he was clear about that part when someone asked him.