PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
View Single Post
Old 24th Nov 2017, 23:00
  #1076 (permalink)  
Checkboard
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,792
Received 115 Likes on 55 Posts
Originally Posted by thorn bird
There was no regulatory requirement to allow for these under Australian law.
CAR 234(3) specifically required that contingencies such as a loss of pressurisation or engine failure be considered when determining the amount of fuel required for a flight. CAR 220 also required the operator to provide specific instructions for situations such as an engine failure. CAAP 234-1 provided additional guidance for these abnormal situations.

Originally Posted by thorn bird
pacific island destinations communications can and do prove problematic ... can't get a phone call out. Sorry patient, you'll just have to die here because I cannot obtain current weather
They had no trouble with phone calls - several were made by several parties. With the internet out, the company officers in Sydney could have planned the flight (and this was reasonably common). Pilots are paid to find solutions, not ignore problems. The doctor stated that, had he been asked, he would have been happy for the patient to wait for a day - the patient wasn't critical (indeed, the patient survived a plane crash and an hour and a half swimming in the sea!)

Originally Posted by thorn bird
this is the middle of the Pacific ocean, all coms are via HF.
At no point has anyone suggested that comms were a problem. HF is HF - it works. The important point about being in the middle of the Pacific is that there is no ATC radar. Separation is purely on pilots reporting accurate times - which is why Airways submitted an occurrence report to the New Zealand CAA when the aircraft arrived at the reporting point (and FIR boundary) 12 minutes earlier than estimated. When your separation is time-based, 12 minutes early can be a mid-air! :o

Originally Posted by thorn bird
the ATSB report it indicated the aircraft was held at FL270 for a period because of traffic in RVSM airspace. I have never flown a Westwind but those that have have told me they are a bit of a lead slug trying to get altitude when heavy and hot.
The aircraft was cleared to FL350 at 0620. At 0628 it was instructed to descend to FL270 due traffic - but they asked to climb and were given a climb to FL390. They weren't held at FL270. They never stated their MED1 status. I have about 1600 hours on Westwinds - climb to FL350 all day. Higher if at lower weights.
Checkboard is offline