Originally Posted by havick
squeaks, a mix of SA and QLD.
each operation had different requirements that could legally allow you to achieve the same outcome depending on what was in your ops manual.
The inference of CHTR is that if it was in fact a commercial operation (ie AWK as you suggest), then if they weren't filming for the leg home then I would consider that particular sector as CHTR. The crew journo/cammo are really only essential crew when that sector is an AWK sector (ie engaged in aerial filming).
I'll give you an example of a CH7 operation I have flown at where the the pilot and aircraft are on a long term contract to help explain where I'm coming from.
Lets use S.A. as an example and paint three scenarios;
Scenario 1; (boat on fire beyond Auto distance from the beach).
Scenario 2; Interview at Kangaroo island with a local.
Scenario 3; Car smash on KI (requiring aerial shots and then a stand up at the scene)
Scenario 1; no floats required (although I would put them on if they were serviceable and not being maintained)
Scenario 2; Floats definately required (as there was no aerial filming then the whole flight was considered CHTR as per that particular ops manual)
Scenario 3; no floats required for the leg there + aerial filming, but once you have landed and shutdown for the standup then floats would be required for the return leg overwater (with pax) or you could re-position the aircraft back to base so long as you were the only one on board. realistically you would throw the floats on to save the hassle.
In QLD, there's no floats fitted to the aircraft at all.
I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. I don't know what's in Gary's ops manual, that's why I was asking. However all 'contracted' aircraft by the networks all had a similar reference to what is AWK and what is CHTR
**I'd like to re-iterate that I'm not speculating on the actual cause of the accident (I have my own opinion which I'm keeping to myself). I still think that there wouldn't have been enough lighting for a legal departure. I also wonder if if were legal for the two pax to be on board at night in that scenario (ie not filming as you suggest, and if they were filming how could they do it below LSALT at night without a gyro cam anyway).
I've taken the lliberty of copying havick's post from D&G, as the fixed wing lack of comprehension is doing my head no good whatsoever!
havick:
I think that your Aerial Work/Charter issue is a distraction. I recall a big kerfuffle about Ambo patients negating Air Ambulance classifying themselves as Aerial Work, and endless crewroom discussions about Aerial Work continuing as AW after the filming/photography/fire fighting 'action' had finished. The aircraft still has to transit to and from the location, and IMO it remains Aerial Work until the job is finished and the aircraft tucked up for the night. Your scenarios 2 & 3 are taking interpretation of the CAR's just too far to be practical: and is it relevant to this accident?
As Brian said, even the issue of helipad lighting is a furphy: once you're airborne it is all behind you. As I said in D&G, the ATSB preliminary report indicates impact on the pilot's side at an extreme angle of bank: maybe Gary disturbed a flock of waterbirds which flew up into the helicopter, incapacitated him (no helmet) and that was all she wrote
