So as not to keep you in suspenders
for too long,
Rongotai, I'll answer those Q's as accurately as I can.
1. Dropping the cloth probably wasn't a problem - obviously the recovery of it was a major contributory factor.
2. No, she was under no pressure to operate this flight.
3. Yes, it was planned as a single pilot operation.
4. She had several thousand hours as a m/e ifr pilot, and from memory in excess of several hundred on the Conquest.
5. You're getting warm.
It was not until I went out to see the Chief Pilot, and started "digging" that the following came to light.The fogging on the aircraft (and again I want to cover myself here by saying I
think it was a Cessna Conquest) was a known problem, and an AD had been issued stating that a demister had to be fitted, however as they were in short supply, this one was not.
Further investigation revealed that the (2) owners of the company had, in fact, received the part, but had then re-sold it to another operator for a handsome profit!
There were no other known equipment failures.
6. Immediately pre-flight, there were no other disputes or problems.
7. It had been quite a long duty day, however she was within limits.
8. No, no other similar problems.
9. There were no NOTAMS issued indicating any problems on that particular section of the taxiway. Plans obtained indicated that all taxiway lighting had been installed in accordance with the requirements, eg. spacing, colour, geometrical range of visibility. A visual check ( ride in the yellow car) confirmed that all lights were servicable.
The ground falls away at a gentle slope from the sealed section of the taxiway to the drains.
10. Hmmm. The Chief Pilot indicated that she had cooked an engine several weeks prior to that, and that she was being "watched". At the meeting the following morning, the owners also raised this issue, so imho my opinion would be to reply "Yes" to your question.
11. Yes, normal services had resumed by this time.