PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
View Single Post
Old 31st Aug 2012, 07:49
  #104 (permalink)  
Checkboard
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,797
Received 119 Likes on 58 Posts
Reading the report, I was surprised:
  • that there was no weight and balance analysis - or even a suggestion that one was completed. Even simple GA reports produced in a month or so have a statement similar to "the aircraft was within the weight and balance envelope." As this report relates to the amount of fuel uplifted, and it was a long flight, it seems very pertinent.
  • that there was no mention of the "passenger on an airwork flight" issue. As the airwork category allowed a reduced level of safety (no alternate planning), then permitting passenger travel is a pertinent issue.
  • The PIC received the latest aerodrome forecast (TAF)7 for Norfolk Island from the briefing officer during the submission of the flight plan.
    The poor briefing, and the Captain's statement that internet access was difficult is a major failure in the report - and the system defence for that is obviously the quality of availability of correct information, I am surprised there is no assessment of the quality of information available from the briefing office. As the Captain received the information "during the submission" of the flight plan, it seems obvious that the plan was already completed before any briefing material was obtained.
  • the report mentions that the company check required the calculation of CPs and PNRs as part of the endorsement/check to line, and that this training was not required to be recorded. There is no mention of any test to see if the accident Captain, or any other of the company's crew (or any of their representative industry pilots) are actually capable of calculating an off track CP and off track PNR under cockpit conditions. I say this because I doubt 20% of pilots in the industry can, and that is a failure of the exam system as the exam system focuses on very high accuracy which leads itself to systems of calculating which are not practical in the real world. That is why the company manual had the simplified fuel flow/planning information in it, and why the Captain stated
    The PIC indicated that for operations in the Westwind, there were effectively two refuelling options; either the aircraft carried full fuel, or the wing tanks only were filled.
    (ie. Crew were not confident enough in their fuel planning to specify an accurate (and efficient) fuel load)

Last edited by Checkboard; 31st Aug 2012 at 07:57.
Checkboard is offline