I've read about half of the report. This one is pretty comprehensive, at least.
Answers quite a few questions missed in the first report.
- Different fuel planning methodologies, and the results of each.
- The history of why Australia in the only country to classify air ambulance as "aerial work".
- Why the flight was "aerial work" even though it carried a person not strictly connected to the operation (the patient's husband).
- The legal position on taking off without an alternate, then on being advised en-route of a new TAF with weather below the alternate minima, whether there is a legal requirement to divert.
- The TAF relaibility at remote aerodromes like Norfolk
- The general industry lack of advice on PNR and CP planning methodologies.
etc. etc.
But Mr James said a larger tank of fuel would not have changed the outcome that day – he would still have had to ditch the plane in the ocean. ...
"If you put anyone else in the pilot's seat that night, it is more than likely that they would find themselves in the same situation...
Well, that's stretching things a bit far. A full tank of gas would have gone a long way that night.