Hansard from AAI inquiry 22/10/12 (my bold):
Senator FAWCETT: In your opinion, given that the aircraft was not RVSM equipped, was the pressure to get above the 41,000 feet a significant factor in your thinking
for the fuel load that you took out of the origin that day?
Mr James :
It was a factor and had been an issue that I had had difficulties with in the past, and I was mindful of it.
Senator FAWCETT: Just for the committee, RVSM is airspace where air traffic control can apply reduced separation minima vertically between aircraft, but the aircraft has to be calibrated, if you like, with appropriate equipment to be able to fly there. If you have to go below that you have to use a lot more fuel, which is why it is a consideration operationally. So if you were flying below the RVSM airspace, what flight level would that be—280 or 290, or something around there?
Mr James : I believe it is 280.
Senator FAWCETT: Given the all-up weight considerations of the aircraft with a medical kit on board, can you uplift sufficient fuel to fly below RVSM airspace and hold fuel for your abnormal operations or, if required, an alternative for Norfolk Island?
Mr James :
I do not believe you can. I believe you can nearly do so, but, from my understanding, I do not think it can be done.
Senator FAWCETT: Did you ever reflect that back to the company—that, essentially, what you were being asked to do was not actually technically possible?
Mr James : I had two opportunities with the company where they sought my feedback. The first time they simply wanted an account of what took place, and, on the second occasion, it was apparent to me that they had formed a very strong opinion as to who was responsible for the accident, and I did not think that an involved discussion about detail was going to achieve anything.
Senator NASH: On that, what made you think that? That second meeting, you were just saying, led you to form that view—that they had formed the view, obviously, that it was your responsibility. What led you to believe that?
Mr James : They said that. They said as much. Mick was present at that meeting. I was told that—
Senator EDWARDS: In what role were you present at that meeting, Mr Quinn?
CHAIR: And is there anything you would like to add about the capacity in which you appear today?
Mr Quinn : I appear in a private capacity and also as representative of Captain James. My role was: as Dominic was not a member of the union at that stage, he had contacted me and asked me if I would advise him, and Pel-Air allowed me to represent Captain James as an advocate, from a technical point of view, in the Pel-Air committee.
Senator NASH: When they said they had formed that view, what evidence did they give you that led them to form that view?
CHAIR: Could I also raise a procedural matter: at some stage soon, we will go in camera with you as the witness; if you feel you want to give us answers in camera that you do not want to give in public, you may take that—
Senator XENOPHON: Can I ask one question before we go in camera?
Sorry, Senator Nash; were you still—
Senator NASH: It was just that one that I had.
Mr James : I am happy to proceed with these questions. The comment was made to me,
'Are you not aware that, at all times, Pel-Air aircraft carry full fuel?' I replied, 'No, I'm not.' And then I asked, 'Where exactly is that set down in a document?' They were not able to point me in the direction of any such reference. They also said that, had I carried this additional fuel, I would have been able to arrive above Norfolk Island and divert to Noumea. In an email exchange that followed—I thought about what had been said and I wanted to add something on my behalf—they said the fuel would have got me there. I then said, 'What you are considering is the flight fuel, and if you add the reserve fuel and other required contingency fuels to that it can't be done.' My email was not responded to by the company.
That should clear it up for you Dick...
