From Planetalking Sep 23, 2012 4:05PM:
Earlier today an article about
rumors that the ATSB final report into the Pel-Air ditching was being withdrawn or revised was denied by a Ministerial spokesperson.
But in the course of this an explanation of the RVSM or reduced vertical separation minima was provided, and is published below:
· Non-RVSM-equipped ambulance aircraft can be cleared by NZ ATC into RVSM airspace, should traffic allow and the necessary altitude ‘buffers’ be available.
· In this case the aircraft had been cleared by ATC to cruise within NZ/Pacific RVSM airspace, at FL350.
· After initially being cleared by ATC at FL350, the aircraft was instructed to descend to FL270 due crossing traffic. Being conscious of the increased fuel burn at the lower altitude of FL270, the crew requested and was subsequently re-cleared by ATC to climb to FL390. This was maintained until descent into Norfolk Island. Once at FL390, the crew reassessed their fuel remaining and set a lower thrust setting to satisfy themselves that they had sufficient to complete the flight with the necessary reserves intact.
This is further evidence as to how this ATSB report is a disgrace.
Nowhere in the report is RVSM even mentioned. It is very obvious in the ATSB report that the there is a place in the narrative where the words
reduced vertical separation minima ought to have appeared.
Why didn’t they appear? Could it be that the report avoided or expunged this term so as to avoid alerting the curious reader to the fact that the Pel-Air jet which routinely used this non-RVSM airspace was not equipped to use it as a matter of course?
Might that have then caused the curious to turn to the standard operating procedures quoted by the ATSB and discover that there is no contingency written into them for a need to exit RVSM airspace, and that the fuel burn figures pointed to by the ATSB have even less relevance to the situation the pilot was put in by the operator that CASA so woefully failed to supervise?
This illustrates why this report is so bad. It is designed to steer the reader away from asking questions that would embarrass the operator, or from asking further questions about the quality of its oversight by CASA.
The ATSB has already been caught out publishing incorrect information about the meteorological information provided to the pilot, which was picked up in the 4 Corners report and dealt with there.
Its inability or reluctance to even mention RVSM or the certification of the pilot to land at Noumea in the event of a diversion is telling.
This report is going to be examined in minute detail in the Nick Xenophon instigated
Senate committee hearings into it and related matters.
It is reasonable to anticipate that the operational history of Pel-Air medical repositioning flights in this part of the Pacific, including diversions to Noumea which caused friction with its civil aviation authority because of the level of equipment present on its aircraft will be discussed under parliamentary privilege.
Indeed there is a real prospect that the hearings will carry out the job that the ATSB either failed to do, or was unable to bring itself to do because of the adverse effects that may have eventuated for Pel-Air.