Originally Posted by
Duck Pilot
That's what I though as well.
Could also be in breach of CASR Part 91.685, I'm sure our friends at CASA are onto it.
I assume the diversion had a lot to do with their maintenance base being at Essendon.
Breach of 91.685 is an interesting discussion.
Hypothetically, an aircraft has a nose gear failure leaving Adelaide but can climb and cruise happily with the failure. Drag and fuel burn not an issue.
Is it in breach of 91.685 if it continued with the pax on board to Mel - and for arguments sake, both airports CAVOK and same RFFS.