HC
I have to agree that the debate should take place. I do not believe that the risk analysis has been completed as accurately as perhaps we would expect. The point you make was also made by me with regard to the operation that 212man is now flying. There were recorded incidents because of fuel state, regulation and unreliable TAFs, yet we were faced with PC2e operating weights that would limit the options for carrying "additional" fuel.
My current operation also has similar limitations. We may be looking at flying about 265nm from a land alternate, but the fuel we can carry is being limited due to PC2e requirements. The balance between risks seems somewhat skewed, especially considering the "relatively benign" environment we are flying in?
I can also recall returning from Beatrice with an S61 on minimum VFR fuel thanks to the TAF. The METAR on return meant that an ILS to 34 was inevitable. On coasting in I asked if there would be "any delay". No was the answer, until I reached Inverurie when I was informed I would be No.10 for the ILS. That was immediately followed by "Pan, Pan...". Not a comfortable position at all!
Unfortunately the fuel issue is not statistically quantifiable?
Should Pure PC2 be the proper way forward? A performance criteria that balances the performance capability of current aircraft with the overall risks associated with the task we are carrying out?
Last edited by Variable Load; 21st March 2009 at 18:14.