GADRIVR,
As BombsGone said at post #357:
I understand your frustration with the tone and content of some of the posts...
I can
also understand that, but what I
can't understand GADRIVR is your comment at post#353 which on the face of it, appears to be directed in response to Brian's post at #352 which in reality is just a repeat of an ATSB Recommendation (R20000040).
You said:
Brian....you just don't get it do you?
I repeat....idiot!
I omitted your smilies in the quote! I give up GADRIVR. What doesn't Brian get, and why's Brian an idiot for quoting an ATSB Recommendation?
Re-read what Bryan said WRT
Australian Regulations as follows:
In 1991, Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234 was enacted. This regulation provided that an aircraft would not commence a flight unless the pilot in command and the operator had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety. The regulation did not specify the method for determining what was sufficient fuel in any particular case. Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1(0) dated March 1991, provided guidelines which set out one method that could be used to calculate fuel requirements that would satisfy CAR 234. CAAP 234-1 did not contain any special considerations or requirements when planning a flight to an island destination.
In August 1999, Civil Aviation Order 82.0 was amended to require all charter passenger-carrying flights to Norfolk Island and other remote islands to carry fuel for the flight to their destination and to an alternate aerodrome. The alternate aerodrome must not be located on a remote island. This requirement to carry additional fuel does not apply to regular public transport flights to a remote island.
That's really not so hard to undestand, is it?
Apart from that, I agree with you that everyone here needs to 'calm down' and let the ATSB and/or CASA work out what happened and why it happened.