Slats there has never, not ever been any disagreement that there were errors of judgement, James admits he made errors, the Senate agreed he made errors, the accident, apart from the appalling treatment of Karen Casey has, for a very long while now been history. No one is remotely interested.
What has become exposed is the absolutely dreadful performance of the 'authority' and the attempts made to manipulate the reports, misdirect the inquiry and abrogate all responsibility to a pitiful, meaningless 'pilot error' call. Back in the 2000+ posts on this thread stand alone; this has been discussed. To revisit that old, stale argument about fuel and fool, is pointless. However, if you wish to research and reinvent the wheel, do so. But please be sure of the facts you use to back the assertions. Be aware that a very clever lawyer or two and various assorted experts took the argument well beyond the James admitted errors of judgement, for which he paid and still, today pays a stiff price for. The same people delved deeply into what CASA and the ATSB did, before and after the incident and found them wanting. You need to think it through. For instance:-
I wonder if it possible the AOC specified charter but the company manual (approved by CASA) specified aerial work.
The manual, including fatigue, flight planning and fuel policy would be 'accepted' by CASA, not approved. The line between the two conditions being a seriously 'grey' area; the old merry go round of endlessly amending and adding 'twiddles' to an operations manual to satisfy the peculiar tastes of the individual FOI, so that the FOI 'accepts' the manual as part of the certification process. There exists a mountain of tales and stories about getting CASA to 'tick the box' and even Raffety's rule book would be handy; ask any CP who has had the simple pleasure of adding a 'new' type to an AOC, ask his boss how the bank balance held out and then, for kicks, have a read of some of the mind bending dribble written in support. It's a sad indictment and cautionary tale.
Slats - "Had the flight been charter then there would have been alternate fuel."
When McComic stated that R206 was a "good example of bad law", you must understand the statement was made with relish, not in condemnation. It really is a buggers muddle which suits a big "R" regulator very well; the more complex the more exemption etc. and so it rolls on. To a practical man does it matter a bean if the flight was classed as charter, farter or martyr: during the 'acceptance' process the fuel policy, the recommendations, process, calculations and the rationale for the policy edicts should have been in place and thoroughly tested. The simple fact is, they were not and the company was allowed to continue operations without, for many years. That does not get young James completely off the hook, but had there been more 'situational awareness' of the fuel critical nature of the proposed flight and he better educated as to how to 'step around' the traps and pit falls, perhaps there may have been a better outcome. Perhaps not.
Lefty – I know mate, I know. But what's a girl to do?. One must at least learn to ask for dinner and dancing, before the fateful, inevitable event; there is no guarantee of course, that you'll get it..
..
