Does anyone have the legal definition of a "Remote Island" ?
Folks,
The "original" concept was "Island Holding", and was a "get out jail" card for the conduct if operations where there was no practical alternate, given all the circumstances of the operation, mostly the limited performance of the aircraft, if any commercial load was to be possible.
In years gone by, Qantas had a fuel policy that made extensive use of "island holding". In "those days", none of the Pacific or Indian Ocean services would have been possible without "Island Holding". With current large airline aircraft, the need to invoke Island Holding to enable a commercial operation has become less and less.
At one stage, at least two airlines (one AU, one foreign) had a fuel policy that had Perth as an equivalent of Island Holding, due to the then lack of practical alternates that could take their aircraft, before APLM became available.
The matter of the CAO much discussed here has a somewhat different genesis, and appeared as an aftermath of the Seaview Inquiry. The intent of the CAO was to eliminate certain operations to Norfolk and Lord Howe.
In my opinion, it failed in its specific intent (the particular operator continued), in part because it is so bloody complicated. A typical output of the CASA Office of Legal Counsel of the day.
If there is to be a law that mandates alternates for particular destinations, regardless of any other consideration, it should not be written so that it is able to be debated, as to its meaning.
All too typical of much Australian aviation law.
Tootle pip!!