Merged: Pel-Air Westwind Ditching off NLK

[Gnd Power]

Maurader
Think you may be wrong there in your statement.

CAO 82 applies to Air Operators’ Certificates authorising aerial work operations, charter operations and regular public transport operations and sets out conditions to which such certificates are subject for the purposes of paragraph 28BA (1) (b) of the Act.

AND then

2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are:

(a) the minimum amount of fuel that will, whatever the weather conditions, enable the aeroplane to fly, with all its engines operating, to the remote island and then from the remote island to the aerodrome that is, for that flight, the alternate aerodrome for the aircraft, together with any reserve fuel requirements for the aircraft;

and etc etc

Your 3A is just a further restriction to that above which applies to pax carrying CHT operations, that being the alternate cant be another remote island and cant be a single engine aircraft.

So it appears that you still need a alternate even for AWK travel to a remote island.

edit (Zanzibar, you beat me by mere minutes)

[Brian Abraham]

CAO 82 simply does not apply here, with regard to remote islands
Marauder, I'll take your word for it at the moment, but beg to differ. Please explain why CAO 82.0.2.3 does not apply, as far as I can see it applies to aerial work, charter and RPT. This part defines what is regarded as "minimum safe fuel", where as 3A.1 elaborates a little further by directing that charter must have more than one engine and the alternate may not itself be a remote island. It directs that the flight may "not carry less than the minimum safe fuel".

As said before, the "minimum safe fuel" is determined by 82.0.2.3. Stand to be corrected.

Edit and I'm dragging the chain in response.

[Marauder]

Thanks Brian, but i think the genie is out of the bottle.

Regarding selective use of regs, of course you can, CASA have been doing for years.

[sru]

Sorry guys slight thread drift but...

Does anyone have the legal definition of a "Remote Island" ? (obviously the ones stated in CAO 82, but how is it defined) Very relevant when it comes to looking at alternates out there. (IE why is Noumea etc not remote and able to be used as an alternate?).

SRU

[601]

Does anyone have the legal definition of a "Remote Island"
I don't think you would be able to second guess the CAO Interpretation. I would say the reason the three islands are named in the CAO is to rule out any confusion on the definition of "remote island"

[HotDog]

Marauder, according to your public profile, "Location:ere today, gone tommorrow
Occupation:Redneck" ;does not indicate if you are a pilot. If you are in fact a pilot, would you operate a flight to a remote island without an alternate with sufficient fuel?:confused:

[Marauder]

Brian, here is the guts of it, but I am as guilty as those I am accusing, selective posting and quoting ( to save bandwidth and sore fingers), but read and re read the whole lot and you will find that it applies to pax charter only, not legitimate Aerial Work

3A Conditions for passenger-carrying charter operations to remote
islands. etc etc etc

Yeh its a loophole, but at the end of the day, it is all that counts

[Gnd Power]

Marauder,

You are right about 3A not applying to AWK operations but you seem to conveniently not apply 2.4 which does.

Both 2.4 ad 3A require an alternate for remote island operations (unless there is a approved ops manual that provides differently).

Sorry, cant see your loophole at all.

[mattgitau]

It's interesting sitting here watching everyone giving there expert opinions with the benefit of hindsight and without the operational pressures the crew were under at the time.

Regardless of what we may think or how we think we may have done things different from an operational and planning point of view, I think Dom deserves some praise and credit for making what has to be one of the most difficult command decisions any aircraft would ever want to have to make.

I wonder how many of you, put in the same situation, would have had the courage to make the ultimate command decision and ditch the aircraft.

I think there would be some of you who would have continued the approach below minimas and tried to land (with probably disastrous results), and probably a similar number of you who would have flown the aircraft until it simply ran out of fuel, because you wouldn't have had the courage to make the command decision that this crew did.


Should we not be learning and reflecting more on Command Decision making (more so, some of our own) as opposed to critizising the crew.

[Arnold E]

mattgitau
I can see that you are a supporter of the pilot in question, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, however, whilst you say the pilot made a difficult command decision, why didnt he make the decision to warn the passengers of an impending ditching.I would have thought that it would be the minimum that should occur if the ditching was planned.

[Transition Layer]

mattgitau

How about you go and practice your goal kicking instead of sitting on pprune...that one you missed against Scotland was an absolute shocker!

(sorry for the thread drift!)

[KABOY]

Where is the command decision in a ditching due to fuel exhaustion? The only decision is to attempt to land on land or water, that is life preservation not command decision making.

The last command decision was to carry out a missed approach and not divert or proceed beyond a PNR in qustionable wx conditions.

[lordofthewings]

VH-NGA= Norfolk Go Around........
Hope the pax in the back can get over this one. Out there delivering a service second to none putting there lives in the hande of the guys and girls in the pointy end. Learn from it and move on...:ok:

[The Green Goblin]

I wonder how many of you, put in the same situation, would have had the courage to make the ultimate command decision and ditch the aircraft.

I think he saw the fame 'ole Sully received and thought he would have a go himself...

On a more serious note however this is not an example of a hero, but rather and example of 'poor aimanship' IMO and should be used and treated as an example of such.

[ZEEBEE]

I wonder how many of you, put in the same situation, would have had the courage to make the ultimate command decision and ditch the aircraft.

Because the correct decisions WEREN'T made earlier...the last action wasn't a decision...It was inevitable. Just a matter of time.

In any case,the facts indicate that the "water landing" was inadvertent anyway.

[Tempo]

In any case,the facts indicate that the "water landing" was inadvertent anyway.

Zeebee,

And what 'facts' are you referring to? Those reported on Today Tonight or ACA? Or those from Pprune or Crickey??

You seem to know the facts so why dont you share them.

[Checkboard]

Three people ended up in the water without life jackets
The Airport Manager who launched to rescue them stated that he didn't know when the aircraft hit the water, or where it was when he launched the boat to find them (first hand radio interview)
The husband in the back stated that there was no advanced warning of the aircraft hitting the water. (First hand radio interview)
No Mayday was either received or acknowledged (multiple sources).
:hmm:

If there was any "decision" to ditch, and it wasn't just a case of striking the water while low and slow, stooging around looking for a hole in the weather, it was the worst "planned" ditching in history! :hmm:

[mavrik1]

Sounds like the airport Manager was the real hero out of all of this! Where was the FO when all these bad decisions where being made...

[Mount'in Man]

I'm not an atorney but wouldn't section 2 of CAO 82.0 simply set out the 'interpretation' in so far as the CAO is concerned - a little like definitions and therefore only regulatory when applied to conditions. After all it does specify 'Interpretation" in the heading. The conditions for Charter are as stated under 3A headed "Conditions for passenger ...". There is a gulf between the term 'interpretation' and 'condition' in my opinion.

Obviously RPT would be specified in a more formal and specific document appended to the AOC or your operations manual. Same may be applicable to airwork, also referenced to the operations manual.

I would imagine that any regulator would cover his butt by requiring a charter operator to also deal with fuel issues under the operations manual but rely on 3A as a safety net pending operational surveillance and development of such manual.

Surely the operator and the managing or chief pilot would have an obligation to oversee any such operation and perhaps intervene if the mission is running outside the gambit of probability.

Little bit premature to hang the crew without fully considering the procedures they were attempting to comply with. You guys are hip shooters.

[sru]

Two things,

1. They did a good job of ditching at the end ( intentional or not : all survived)

2. How did they get into that situation?

In today's "regulated sterile environment How does one learn? " Airman ship is a change in attitude brought about by Experience" .

Unfortunately the system now caters for the lowest common denominator. and as such "learning" or thinking outside the "box" is discouraged.

What ever happened to common sense and self preservation.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Norfolk Hawk as a person that lives here on Norfolk Island who watched all 3 missed approaches and listened to all the coms, and pretty well everything else

Can you shed some light on how events unfolded that night? I've heard reference to 3 approaches, but I've also seen a mention of 6 - can you confirm? Were comms difficult that night?

No doubt about it, putting the SAR boat through 3m waves through the gap in the reef is no mean feet in itself and should be recognised. As always though, it's the humble volunteers that save the day who go unrecognised by the media.

[emu787]

The Westwind 1124A is a 2200nm aircraft. It ditched after a 1440nm sector................why..............well I can assure you the good people at ATSB will get to to the bottom of this one (if they are properly funded)

Why did this happen to this jet and never before to other aircraft going to Norfolk Island or Christmas Island or Cocos Island or for matter of fact any other bloody place on the planet!!!!!

Globally, EMS aircraft, both FW and RW are experiencing many tragic accidents..........WHY?????

Was this a classic CFIT, was this poor judgement and decision making by the crew or was this poor safety oversight by the company or was this faulty weather reporting.......... or all the the above??

There is no such thing as an "accident"

Let us encourage the Federal Government to fund the investigation properly and eventually read a report that will educate people in the aviation industry and even others.

No proper investigation results in no proper findings!!!

We all know that accidents....expose huge deficiencies in what was considered a perfectly normal operation. Thats what the investigators are there for.................

Everybody, including the crew should be thankfull that all survived.

let the TRUTH prevail

[onetrack]

mattgitau - I wonder how many of you, put in the same situation, would have had the courage to make the ultimate command decision and ditch the aircraft Aren't you missing the point here? The guy PUT himself, his aircraft and his pax, IN this position of needing to ditch, because of poor planning and a gung-ho atttitude. He never had a mechanical failure, the aircraft was airworthy at all times, as I understand, until the minute it hit the water.
IMO, he looks like Tom Cruise, and he thought he was playing Tom Cruise - but with pax aboard.
He's a BOLD pilot - and bold pilots make good fighter pilots, but don't often make good civvy pilots. His responsibility as a civvy pilot with pax, at all times, is to ensure that he takes no risks. He took a risk and lost. Luckily, it was only a jet he lost; next time, it might be a jet + pax.

[Checkboard]

1. They did a good job of ditching at the end ( intentional or not : all survived)
There are two ways for them to "all survive" :

A good ditching
being very lucky.
:rolleyes:

[sru]

Checkboard,

Agree, but what can we LEARN from this ? God forbid it happening to us, what then?

:confused:

PS not talking about the act of ditching. r m p past point 2:cool:

[drshmoo]

A good ditching does always have an element of luck doesn't it? The fact that they all are alive is a great thing and the Cpt has obviously done a great job getting the aircraft on the water in one piece. The odds were significantly stacked against him. Night, poor wx, significant swell, maybe aircraft type too.

However lets hope at the end of this enquiry that the fuel regulations especially with regard to remote island opeartions are made far clearer!
Instigation of proper ditching training, not the fluffy box ticking crap that gets passed as training.

Great work to the locals who responded quickly at fetched them from the sea!!

[living the good life]

I too have flown the Westwind, and done the leg from Apia to Norfolk, I have also done Apia to Noumea when the weather was bad.

The way I look at it weather the ditching was well done or good luck it is irrelevant, its like judging an entire flight on the landing.

lets look at the decision making.

1. choice of aerodrome - - on a day with alternate requirements on YSNF, and none on NWWW why use YSNF which has a VOR, and NDB or RNAV which none of the westwind crews are trained for (unless things have changed), instead of NWWW which has an ILS, VOR, NDB and no alternate requirements for the sake of an extra 100nm (not to mention air traffic control services and closer alternates)

2. Fuel - - I have seen on here reports of not taking full fuel, and have heard the same rumors from some friends linked to this. Why would you not take full fuel? we always used full fuel for flights in the pacific unless there was an operational reason not to.

3. Pre-flight briefing - - once again I have seen on here a report the CREW departed without weather or notams, and have heard from my friends they had difficulty getting weather and notams, no one can confirm whether they did or didnt have it but there is doubt over whether they had it, if this is true, Poor Command decision making, and lets not forget the FO who keeps being left out of this, They are a crew she should have also ensured they had everything before departing (this point may not be relevant if they did get weather and notams, being Apia he had better have signed for it or there is no record and ATSB will probably assume he didn't have it, and the met guys in Apia will say no signature he didn't get it to keep the spot light off them)

4. Situational Awareness during the flight - - The CREW either didnt get Metars on the way to YSNF, or didn't act on them - Why would any captain continue to a remote airfield that is showing metars with OVC cloud below the lowest Approach minimum if they knew they wouldnt have the fuel to miss out and divert?

5. As you go charts - - as mentioned by an earlier post pelair us to have as you go graphs which we always ran for flights in the pacific, or to other destinations with PNR, CP's and PSD's - - obviously one of these wasnt being done or the CREW would have noticed that the winds were stronger than forecast (as is being reported in the media now) and would have know a good estimate of how much fuel they would have on arrival as opposed to how much they needed, and would have given a good idea for a diversion.
( I have been in the same situation where winds have been substantially stronger than forecast and I diverted instead of swimming, and the weather wasnt below approach minimum, only alternate min but I still diverted to my alternate, but then again I am not a hero either)

6. the most worrying part of all, the ditching -- -- -- How the hell do you ditch an aircraft on purpose without first MAKING A MAYDAY CALL so search and rescue are launched before you hit the water, briefing the passengers, preparing the cabin (ie securing loose objects, fastening seatbelts for an impact and ensuring the rafts are in a position that is secure and will allow easy deployment) ensuring the passengers are wearing life jackets and know how and when to inflate them.

As with most people I am hearing all this info second hand but if any of the above points are true, I would not want to get in an aircraft with either of these pilots in control.

I am glad I am not a hero, I prefer being a Captain, or even a Crew member for that matter.

[dogcharlietree]

A good ditching does always have an element of luck doesn't it? The fact that they all are alive is a great thing and the Cpt has obviously done a great job getting the aircraft on the water in one piece. The odds were significantly stacked against him. Night, poor wx, significant swell, maybe aircraft type too.
Luck???? Depends on the pilots skill and experience. If these are sadly lacking, then yes, luck plays a big part.
I would have thought that a Westwind fuselage would probably be the best one could have for ditching. I mean to say there is just a fairly round and smooth single hull to put onto the water. It is not impaired by, wings, engines, undercarriage. To me it would be the (near) perfect platform to conduct a "water landing".

[Rayford Steele]

VH-NGA did 3 approaches to YSNF last Wednesday night.
2 x 11 VOR/DME approaches each followed by a Missed Approach,
then a 29 VOR/DME approach followed by a Missed Approach
After that nothing further was heard - No Mayday, No Pan.

Local news articles can be found at Norfolk Online (http://www.norfolkonlinenews.com/)

[Andu]

Can someone with some time on Westwinds so some sums for me?

Would it be safe to assume, that the aircraft had divert capability (to Noumea?) at or around TOPD, if not a bit later?

How much fuel would that involve? (I'd be guessing, a quite substantial amount, as in a couple of hours endurance?)

Would three approaches and misssed approaches burn that much fuel and his final fixed reserve? (I'd be guessing - no.)

So how much fuel would you be guessing was still in the tanks when the captain decided (that's IF he decided!!!) to put it down in the water?

Can anyone tell me what time passsed between the third missed approach and the time the aircraft alighted on the water?




If the information beginning to come to light now is accurate, (no pre-ditching briefing for the pax, life jackets not worn, no Mayday call or even a request for the boat to launch etc), I'd be guessing that we're looking at a very, VERY lucky outcome to what might have been an unmitigated disaster, and, amazing as it might seem to some, that the ditching might have been almost as much of a surprise to the pilots as it was to the passengers!!!

What did someone say earlier in the thread? Something along the lines that it's uncanny how often when the media hails a pilot as a hero immediately after the event, the final report brings out something very, very different?

For everyone's sake, I hope I'm really, really wrong in harbouring these suspicions.

[scarediecat]

Spot on emu787 :D.

IMO the crew did things well that night and other things not so well - obviously. There was bad luck that night but alot of good luck.
Having worked for Pelair I fear for the two pilots involved. Painted as hero's last week, out in the cold this week, let's see.
IMO I think the pilots are to a degree a reflection of the culture of the company they work for. (some will disagree but it's reality) Legally and all that they arn't. I can't help but think decisions made on the night would'nt be that of a person who wasn't under some other pressure's. Hopefully this will also be investigated.
IMO Pelair do things well, but other things not so well - this I think is where the resulting investigation should eventually focus.
Shall be interesting to read what media statements (if any) are released this week.

[Jabawocky]

I know some of you guys will take a shot at this comment, but why does an aircraft of this nature in this day not have something like a G430/530? (actually a G495 hand held would be better, as it gives you a G/S and used in conjunction with the 430). Do they have radar altimeters in the W/W?

Few pages back a a couple of us suggested pushing the minima a little in "emergency" situations, well if you look at the offsets for a VOR approach they are far from runway aligned so no chance of pushing below, if they were only doing a DME arrival the minima is around 1200AGL :eek:.

Now look at a RNAV RWY11.......runway aligned.....with two pilots, split the worload and follw three degrees all the way......monitor your progress very carefully and chances are they would have been visual well before the runway. Sure beats the odds on ditching or stooging around in the dark and accidental ditching. Sure breaking a few rules, but far safer in my opinion.

[tinpis]

How deep is the water? http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/scubdiv.gif

[dogcharlietree]

Try this;
www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/Div_Fish_Tech_Paper_31.pdf

[ZEEBEE]

Zeebee,

And what 'facts' are you referring to? Those reported on Today Tonight or ACA? Or those from PPRuNe or Crickey??

You seem to know the facts so why dont you share them.

Thanks CheckerBoard for answering very succinctly in your following post.


Three people ended up in the water without life jackets
The Airport Manager who launched to rescue them stated that he didn't know when the aircraft hit the water, or where it was when he launched the boat to find them (first hand radio interview)
The husband in the back stated that there was no advanced warning of the aircraft hitting the water. (First hand radio interview)
No Mayday was either received or acknowledged (multiple sources).



Jabawocky wrote
Now look at a RNAV RWY11.......runway aligned.....with two pilots, split the worload and follw three degrees all the way......monitor your progress very carefully and chances are they would have been visual well before the runway. Sure beats the odds on ditching or stooging around in the dark and accidental ditching. Sure breaking a few rules, but far safer in my opinion.

Couldn't agree with you more. Even the VOR app would be preferable since the VOR is sited right near the threshold of RW11.
However, it would have been dicey as there is a cliff face not very far behind.
As many have pointed out, the splashdown was always preferable to trying to shift the cliff.

Beggar's choice really. :{

[Cactus Jak]

Were they carrying the patients husband? If so, this would be a charter operation, not Aerial work.

[601]

Back in 2000 I did some work for an AOC holder who was conducting operations to "Remote Islands"
Our OM had 15 pages of flight planning data covering every conceivable situation.

One paragraph stated
the pilot in command shall, before commencing descent, obtain the latest actual weather from the Company's agent at the island and, if the weather is below the aircraft landing minima and the forecast does not indicate any improvement in the weather, the pilot in command shall divert to the nominated alternate.

The operation was subject to an Instrument of Approval from CASA and was specific to particular aeroplanes by registration. I cannot remember why the operation was subject to approval by CASA as the CAO does not state approval is required only that the minimum fuel may be subject to direction by CASA. There may have been a requirement in a schedule to the AOC to have approval. Refer to 28BBof the Act.

Posts on this thread have referred to the ASTB involvement. Would not the NZ CAA be the investigating Authority.

[dogcharlietree]

Would not the NZ CAA be the investigating Authority.

Norfolk Island became an an Australian Territory in 1914 and is administered under the Norfolk Island Act 1979, which provides for an Administrator as nominal head of the Norfolk Island Government, a Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and a Norfolk Island Supreme Court oversighting the Island's legal system (derived from NSW and the UK). The Island's constitutional status is similar to that of the mainland Territories; the major difference is that the Island Government and Legislative Assembly have greater powers and responsibilities, including scope for enacting laws on matters that elsewhere are the preserve of the Federal Government (such as customs, quarantine and immigration).
Whereas Lord Howe island is actually part of NSW.

[Gnd Power]

ZEEBEE

the VOR is actually at the threshold of runway 04. If one was to follow the the runway 11 VOR (offset) approach to below the minima to the extent as being suggested the result would have been ugly.

WRT RNAV approach (not the SCAT RNAV), the plate notes that it was a new procedure and was dated 19th of November (amendment 121). The ditching happened on the 18th of November didn't it.

Was the RNAV approach available in any amendment prior to amd 121?

[601]

Would not the NZ CAA be the investigating Authority.

ATSB would have some function as the aircraft was Australian but who controls the airspace as far as aviation goes?

[acementhead]

Norfolk Hawk WELCOME ABOARD and thanks for your input. I found it very valuable in assessing what went on.

I agree that the real heros were the Airport manager and whoever else went out to perform the rescue. That was the thing that required skill and courage. Inadvertent controlled flight into water takes no skill at all(nor heroism).

Norfolk Hawk I might have talked to you 20 years ago and more as I operated the NAC F27 into Norfolk from the inception of the operation and subsequently the Air New Zealand B737 for a few years.

Thanks again for your post.

[LeadSled]

Does anyone have the legal definition of a "Remote Island" ?
Folks,
The "original" concept was "Island Holding", and was a "get out jail" card for the conduct if operations where there was no practical alternate, given all the circumstances of the operation, mostly the limited performance of the aircraft, if any commercial load was to be possible.

In years gone by, Qantas had a fuel policy that made extensive use of "island holding". In "those days", none of the Pacific or Indian Ocean services would have been possible without "Island Holding". With current large airline aircraft, the need to invoke Island Holding to enable a commercial operation has become less and less.

At one stage, at least two airlines (one AU, one foreign) had a fuel policy that had Perth as an equivalent of Island Holding, due to the then lack of practical alternates that could take their aircraft, before APLM became available.

The matter of the CAO much discussed here has a somewhat different genesis, and appeared as an aftermath of the Seaview Inquiry. The intent of the CAO was to eliminate certain operations to Norfolk and Lord Howe.

In my opinion, it failed in its specific intent (the particular operator continued), in part because it is so bloody complicated. A typical output of the CASA Office of Legal Counsel of the day.

If there is to be a law that mandates alternates for particular destinations, regardless of any other consideration, it should not be written so that it is able to be debated, as to its meaning.

All too typical of much Australian aviation law.

Tootle pip!!

[Car RAMROD]

Andu, i've heard that there was less than the fixed reserve in the tanks. (30mins for turbines isnt it?).
Enough to basically say "the water and thats it".

As for the time between not getting in on the last approach and putting it in the water, bugger all.

[ZEEBEE]

Gnd Power

ZEEBEE

the VOR is actually at the threshold of runway 04. If one was to follow the the runway 11 VOR (offset) approach to below the minima to the extent as being suggested the result would have been ugly.



Thanks for the clarification, it's been some time since I was there and they were just installing the new Doppler VOR on one of my last trips.

Can't answer the question re the RNAV prior to Nov 19, but someone who does the run and has the docs could.

And yes, the offset 11 wouldn't be pretty BUT putting the machine into an unknown swell (They're mostly big around NF) with dubious chances of getting a boat out that didn't know where the aircraft was, isn't a nice scenario either.

It may well be that a deliberate ditching may not have worked out as well as what appears to be an unintentional one.

[The Green Goblin]

I do love the difference between the media and PPrune!

Media

Hero pilot saves 6 passengers with successful night ditching.

PPrune

Reckless pilot has a CFIT accident in an unprepared ditching

Hope I never make a mistake and get put through the wringers on here!!

[Jabawocky]

C'mon GG......... get with the spirit! :}

You know the heroes were the folk in the boat that went to save them from being part of a marine food chain!

Big bities hang around there.....and the swell against the rocks just tenderises the meal a little first! :uhoh:

[crossingclimb]

From the current Norfolk Online: (Welcome to Norfolk Online (http://www.norfolkonlinenews.com/php/mainindex.php?a=4))


Hi Folks,

I guess we will eventually read the ATSB report but I might be able to offer an answer to the question "why
was this aircraft so low on fuel?" To begin with he
probably wasn't low on fuel when he arrived at Norfolk.
Lets assume he had mandatory reserves on board. This
amount of fuel would be Fixed Reserve (30 minutes of
flying in a jet) plus any Variable Reserve (usually 10%
of flight fuel, call it 10% extra on route fuel to get
to NLK from Samoa). How long does it take to fly between
Samoa and NLK? It is 1450nm from Apia to NLK which
probably means about 3.5hrs of flying.
Therefore 10% of route fuel is another 21 minutes worth.
Result is total 51 minutes of fuel on board before the
first approach to be legal. Any extra
fuel is a bonus!
Each approach could take 10-12 minutes to fly on
average. Therefore 3 attempts to get in will have used
at least 30 minutes worth of fuel and
possibly 40 minutes worth. This means somewhere between
10 and 20 minutes of fuel left. What does a crew do with
this? Well my humble opinion is (after 13,600hrs flying)
that you use it to complete some sort of emergency
landing under full control and not wait until the gas is
gone and you are forced into the same decision. A
prepared ditching is far more survivable than an
unprepared one. All on board need briefing in the little
time left plus the cabin needs preparation for the
ditching and evacuation that will follow. Add extreme
stress (am I going to die soon?) and this can be a very
unpleasant time.
The result we know .. a ditching, a successful
evacuation and they were all rescued. My greatest
congratulations to the pilots for the best outcome. And
they ditched at night which vastly reduces the chances
of a safe water landing & survival. Double congrats from
me! I wonder which Westwind it was?
Cheers, Paul (Paul is a Pilot )


Now I understand.......:eek:

[STOL_king]

I believe that the main issue of planning, or lack there off has already been discussed to death here. That aside, the ditching was 10/10 :ok:.

The issue of his so-called good looks is an equally important issue. Sure, go ahead an persecute the pooor bastard for operational decisions.....but for his looks??

I too suffer descrimination in the workplace and around the airfield on a daily basis because of my extremely good looks. Surrounded by guys (and some gals) who have heads like dropped pies is not easy.... in fact I try to tell myself that they must have really big trouser snakes to compensate, but still, it's not easy. :sad: Some days I look at my full sized trusty mirror and tell myself I'm fugly just so I can endure the hours ahead.

Please dont' hate us for our good looks. :(

Yours exceptionally attractive and well hung.

[Dog One]

The RNAV - Y approaches for Rw 04, 11 and 29 are all shown as new procedures eff 19th November2009.

Are the Pelair aircraft able to RNAV approaches and are the crews qualified.

[Bo777]

crossing climb
You forgot Norfolk is a remote island. I'm not going to elaborate because there have been plenty of posts on here on how much fuel the PIC should have been carrying.:ugh:

[aviexp]

Hey ONETRACK

P/A is looking for Tom. Check out the AFAPP jobs for Nov 13th advert.


Any EGPWS on W/W
Any RadALT?

[crossingclimb]

Bo777:

I hadn't forgotten.

My last post was a piece I read on the Norfolk Online website.

The author claims to have 13000 hours.

It possibly explains why some pilots will go there with mindbogglingly small amounts of fuel and then run out shortly after arriving, in a quietly heroic way. :ugh::ugh:

[teresa green]

Where is the F/O? How come she is not standing there dripping wet still in her slides? (With chest exposed)? It seems like one big monumental stuff up, from word go, a pax seriously ill that can tread water for 40 mins, only 3 life jackets, no mayday, no position call, and the greatest sin of any pilot, be they private or commercial, not enough gas. Add to that the loss of a perfectly servicable aircraft, that contains specialist medical equipment, and it all leaves most of us scratching our heads. However as in all accidents, you have to be there, and that young bloke did what most of us would dread, and did it well, will be interesting to hear final report.:confused:

[Captain Kellogs]

I hope I never have to sit in a plane behind paul the pilot, one thing he forgot to mention is that the Variable reserve can be re-calculated en-route so the plane only needs to arrive with the 30mins fuel in his estimation...

I personally would prefer to arrive with fuel for an alternate when the weather is forecast to be below the alternate minimum, as is required at any aerodrome, ignoring the remote island requirements all together.

if you chew to much fuel on the way you divert to your alternate before you get there.

this is in my humble opinion (I only have 8000hrs though so what would I know?)

[Bo777]

CC
sorry my bad.

[GADRIVR]

Stol_King.
I too am having problems with the aviation legends that inhabit my employers pilots room. It would seem that the size of my appendage (which has its own postcode, day care centre and starring role in the next Tarantino film you know) coupled with my outrageous good looks is contributing to a situation where it's just not fun to go to work anymore.:{
I've tried everything you know but these Australian flyboys just won't accept me unless I agree to have facial surgery that leaves me looking like a surprised version of Michael Caton, electric shock therapy that should leave me with intellectual ability of a confused roadsign as well as signing an agreement that limits my clothes and basic shopping needs to the geographical confines of Blacktown City (southern side):*
Whats a lad to do???
Please help......I don't think I can take this torture any longer:(

[doleque]

Spent a year or so flying out to NLK in an RPT 737. Have held for an hour or so, diverted after one approach, etc...both NWWW and AKL and even returned to BNE.

Have seen the WX deteriorate in less than 20 minutes to below the minima, when not even forecast.

About the only constant on that rock is the quality of the service and information given by the CTAF radio operator, the tenacity of the people and the inherent island guts as shown by the rescue crew.

If you have ever seen the NLK reefs, the boat launching crane and the seas that are ever present, you will know what I mean.

I hope next Australia Day I see those guys that were in the launch that night are on the podium for a medal.

[denabol]

Looks like REX and Pel-Air are in for a whipping.

CASA begins special safety audits of Pel-Air & REX – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/11/23/casa-launches-special-safety-audits-of-pel-air-rex/)

[puff]

doleque - having been to NLK many times as well I totally agree with your sediments in relation to the rescue crew. Talk about heros and having large 'coconuts', launching the boat in those conditions after seeing sea conditions at Norfolk first hand, and the launch locations, and then having the airport manager after everything else not only organise but crew the boat - says a lot for the kind of people out at Norfolk.

Glenn and 'Pinky' before him have had nothing but respect from everyone i've even spoken to who has operated out to Norfolk for their professionalism, the Kentia-link PA31 incident Pinky had a very large involvement in the safe termination of that flight.

The sea out there is angry on a nice day let alone when it turns to crap - then add night along with it, lesser people would have refused to launch in those conditions and would have sealed a different fate of the occupants.

I do agree and hope the correct people nominate all involved for bravery awards for an amazing rescue.

[Gunger]

This ditching occured not even 1 week ago.

The amount of **** that some people claim to know about why/when/how this event occured is amazing.

Guys/girls (aka 'f-cking know it all's') out there, pull your heads in and stop claiming to know more than you actually really do.

For those of you that have already jumped up and down putting the boots into the operating crew, have a close look at yourself. You weren't there on the night conducting approach after approach. Nor were you there in planning stages of the flight when it comes down to fuel requirements, alternate choices, etc. Therefore, at these very early stages of the investigation, why don't you let the cat bite your little bullsh-t wagging tounges and not fill this thread with crap.

[doleque]

puff

don't forget the others on the rock that would also have had the wherewithal as well, ie Larry the Harley rider, Dave, Cheryl and all from the "shed" etc etc.

Hard place to get to, but these guys all helped it happen with their intimate wx knowledge and radio assistance.

Not bad for a group of people that descend from those that stole a HMS ship and got an island as a reward.:ok:

Thanks guys...and as a well know Aussie boxer would say, "I luvs you all"..

[ZEEBEE]

For those of you that have already jumped up and down putting the boots into the operating crew, have a close look at yourself. You weren't there on the night conducting approach after approach. Nor were you there in planning stages of the flight when it comes down to fuel requirements, alternate choices, etc. Therefore, at these very early stages of the investigation, why don't you let the cat bite your little bullsh-t wagging tounges and not fill this thread with crap.

Gunger

The facts as reported speak for themselves....An operational aircraft RAN OUT OF FUEL.

There really isn't any way out of that.

If it didn't, then it had no business being at sea level.

Everything else that happened may be debated, but a prudent skipper (and every pilot should be...that's what you ultimately get paid for) would not have let the situation deteriorate to where the only option is to emulate a flying boat.

I suggest you cool down and moderate your language. Maybe a long walk off a short pier might help :E

[Brian Abraham]

Gunger, the discerning reader of this thread will have come to the following conclusions,
1. A serviceable aircraft was parked at a level below the Mean Low Water Springs Tidal level
2. No mayday or other communication was given regarding a possible ditching ergo ditching was unintentional ergo CFIT
3. It follows from 2. that no exceptional skill was necessary in the fortuitous outcome
4. On the face of apparent evidence the aircraft was not carrying the necessary fuel as mandated by my reading of the regs.
5. None of the foregoing is criticism of the operating crew since so many other factors come into play eg training, pressure from management, experience
6. I could agree with ZB's erudite "a long walk off a short pier might help", but assume you have the crews interests at heart. The necessary information is there for a reasonable conclusion to be made, and I would be surprised if there were to be too many surprises in the official report (my conclusion). Much is made of the Kangaroo Court attitude of some on these threads, and some do come across that way, but the discerning aviator, whether they be amateur or professional, only have an interest in learning how a fellow practitioner of the art managed to come to grief. We are all fallible.

[Capt Fathom]

An operational aircraft RAN OUT OF FUEL

Does anyone here know that for a fact? Both engines flamed out?

[Brian Abraham]

Not run out of fuel in the sense the tanks were dry, but no fuel to exercise options ie get to an alternate. Seems to be CFIT (if one were to take a bet).

[bengal tiger]

Doleque;
We luv you too, ahh those were the days in the shed were fantastic ;). She was a night that we will never forget when VH-NGA went for a dip. Everything worked like clock work in the recovery of the 6 POB missing for that brief moment. Local knowledge was a big factor and with all those involved in the rescue, their knowledge was priceless. But I must make a very special mention, the Duty Unicom Operator, his name is Larry. His contribution from the first radio contact with VH-NAG, right to the very end, was outstanding. :D

[Hempy]

From Flight Safety (http://http%3a//www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2005/feb/24-34.pdf) magazine

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/19309272.jpg

[ozangel]

doleque, puff - good words and my sentiments exactly.

Happy to wait for the report to come out - to those of you insisting on 'no speculation', most reasonable folk can decipher the truth from the fiction - so there's certainly no harm done in learning a few good lessons (or indeed reminders) some time ahead of the official report.

But back to my point - having lived on the island as a 'guest', and spent the best years of my life with the locals - I have no doubt that these guys are truly heroes. Measured and reserved, reasonable yet determined, the only reason there were no deaths that night was the heroism shown by the rescuers - like others, I will be supporting their nomination for Australians of the Year.

[The Truckie]

Is it just me or is having an ex government minister as CEO for Pel Air, when they are going for all these government contracts a bit dodgy as I'm sure the ex minister still has friends in high places!??

[GADRIVR]

I'm thinking that this bloke is anything but up himself!!!
If fact.......I'd be putting forward the notion that he's more than capable of taking the piss out of himself and the industry to boot!:E

[404 Titan]

The Truckie

There’s actually nothing illegal about using ones contacts from past employment to help your current employer get contracts. What I find abhorrent though is certain ex pollies that have got plum jobs after their political life simply because they helped a mate in business win a government tender for an airport or highway network. Natural monopolies that should never be in the hands of private enterprise.

[Norfolk Hawk]

Another unanswered question that I am sure someone will be able to answer, comes from another Norfolk resident aviator that lives right next to the VOR at the threshold of 04, hearing and sighting all 3 missed approaches, but when the 3rd and final missed approach went overhead it sounded completely different, it sounded like a "turboprop".

FYI this information was given to the appropriate people during the situation.

[tinpis]

hearing and sighting all 3 missed approaches

Sighting? :hmm:

[Andu]

Not unusual, tinnie, as I'm sure you know. Nor for the crew to see the ground and runway during the missed approach. Slant viz is very different to vertical viz.

Can someone answer my earlier question? Did he start out with alternate capability, or had he planned with no alternate capability?

One comment, where the poster said the fuel state was below fixed reserves when it alighted, would make me think he departed ,not carrying alternate fuel (or a TOPD PNR).

Surely three approaches and missed approaches would not have used up 2+ hours of fuel at cruising rates? (Which I would expect he'd have needed to be carrying Noumea as an alternate or as a TOPD PNR.)

[Rudder]

Truckie,

He is not the CEO. He is in fact the non executice Chairman and would have nothing to do with the day to day running of Pelair.

He is also non executive deputy chairman of Rex.

It would seem that all he has done is stand up for some staff in the absence of the full information. A hanging offence it would seem.

As if his friends in high places are going to be labour government people.

[boeingbender]

2. No mayday or other communication was given regarding a possible ditching ergo ditching was unintentional ergo CFIT
3. It follows from 2. that no exceptional skill was necessary in the fortuitous outcome
4. On the face of apparent evidence the aircraft was not carrying the necessary fuel as mandated by my reading of the regs.With respect Brian Abraham - there's a logical disconnect between the two assertions you make in 2 & 4. If indeed it was a CFIT as you claim to know, how can you purport to know how much fuel was carried with respect to the regulations? The logical consequence of your assertion that it was a CFIT, ie. they are still maneuvering, should be that they were STILL busy attempting approaches into Norfolk, possibly because they maintained an expectation that the weather might improve or, - in fact even STILL had NWWW as an alternate up their sleeve. The last option is highly unlikely I know, but as pilots we tend to be too quick to wash our hands off one of our colleagues after they've achieved that undesirable disconnect between number of Takeoffs and number of landing in our logbook. I realise this is a rumour network but all of the self pronounced aviation experts posting here, helps set a public perception of the nature of character, skill and experience (and in this case - bugger me dead, even the LOOKS) of the aviator in question. For us to hang anyone out to dry before KNOWING the facts involved are as despicable as the press desire to make heroes out of anyone of us after we have done nothing but what would be expected of us in a difficult situation. I have done some flying out to Norfolk myself and echo the sentimens regarding the bravery of the First Response team launching a boat across the reef at night time. Without a shadow of a doubt - THEY are the true heroes in this case and I shall rescind my Aussie citizenship unless they are receiving a well-deserved medal and honour on next Australia day.:ok:

I reckon it is time for a lot of posters on this forum to take a deep breath and let the REAL experts get on with their investigations into the chain of causation that led to the situation where 6 people managed to swim away from the aircraft that night.
Cheers all

[601]

in fact even STILL had NWWW as an alternate up their sleeve.
If this is the assumed case, then the conclusions you could assume for the accident was an attempt to get visual by letting down over the water or ducking under the minima (CFIT) rather than a planned and controlled ditching.

Think about it, why would you ditch if you still had alternate fuel on board?

I note with interest that the "Checklist" posted from the Flight Safety Foundation that there is no reference for the flight crew to don life jackets either before or after ditching.

[ZEEBEE]

With respect Brian Abraham - there's a logical disconnect between the two assertions you make in 2 & 4. If indeed it was a CFIT as you claim to know, how can you purport to know how much fuel was carried with respect to the regulations? The logical consequence of your assertion that it was a CFIT, ie. they are still maneuvering, should be that they were STILL busy attempting approaches into Norfolk, possibly because they maintained an expectation that the weather might improve or, - in fact even STILL had NWWW as an alternate up their sleeve.

BoeingBender I don't see any disconnect at all.

After three approaches one would have thought that things are unlikely to get much better.
If you've been to NF then you will probably know that the reducing temperature will only worsen the situation in the short term therefore the chances of the fog lifting are very unlikely.
Yes it has happened, but would you bet yours and other's life on it ? I wouldn't.

So, if he had the fuel to head off elsewhere then that would have been the time to do it, NOT hang around until you get to fly a submarine.

Surely a decision to ditch would have (given the enormity of the decision) at least been preceded by the MAYDAY call and an approx position of where they planned to deposit the A/C.

All of the factors indicate that the splashdown WAS premature or at the very least unplanned.

Remember, this guy wasn't alone up there...The FO could well have organised all of those things we associate with a planned ditching maneuver.

I could certainly be wrong (have been in the past, many times and sincerely hope I am now) but these realities are hard to walk away from.

[Brian Abraham]

as pilots we tend to be too quick to wash our hands off one of our colleagues after they've achieved that undesirable disconnect between number of Takeoffs and number of landing
Not I, perhaps you missed my
None of the foregoing is criticism of the operating crew since so many other factors come into play eg training, pressure from management, experience
and
but the discerning aviator, whether they be amateur or professional, only have an interest in learning how a fellow practitioner of the art managed to come to grief. We are all fallible.
I reckon it is time for a lot of posters on this forum to take a deep breath and let the REAL experts get on with their investigations
My understanding from posts elsewhere on the site is that Danny set up the board as a substitute for the "happy hour" hangar flying that people might otherwise indulge. Should any not be comfortable with that I guess they can remove themselves and drink at the other end of the bar. Then again I don't know what subjects you restrain yourself to when hangar flying. :p

The site's going to be a pretty empty place if we were all to take a deep breath whenever unfortunate events take place, though a deep breath is preferable before going under water.

Some info that just came to hand from another source

As an expat Norfolk Islander I can confirm there is no ILS available on Norfolk. The only aids are ADF and VOR. The GPS that was installed a number of years ago has not been commissioned. The weather during the 12 hours before the ditching was low ceilings that tended to roll in as fog every few hours. At the time of the ditching it was very heavy rain with fairly solid mist just above the cliff tops. Using the available aids there is no way that the strip could have been sighted in such conditions. The alternates are New Caledonia and Kaitaia in New Zealand both around an hour's flying time away. The local gossip at this stage is that the pilot held too long hoping for a break, and that the ditching was dead stick after just departing the end of RWY 22. If he had lost the engines while over land the ending would have been considerably worse as the airstrip is pretty much the only flat piece of land on Norfolk, the rest is very undulating and covered in Norfolk Island pines, a very substantial tree.

After radio contact was lost - there was no Mayday call - one of the local fire safety officers went out to the cliff top on the western side of the island and spotted 3 little lights bobbing in the ocean. There were only 3 life jackets being used for the 6 survivors. The accident report will make for interesting reading and there are sure to be lessons that can be learned not withstanding the amazing survival and rescue of all onboard.

Deadstick after all perhaps? In which case kudos for a good job in pulling it off if that be the case.

[The Green Goblin]

Has the Westwind got a ditching/water landing checklist in the QRH?

[Fantome]

Should someone here be able to put me in touch with Dom, I'd
be v grateful. (Dear mod, it is to his potential advantage.)

PM only, any info.

[WynSock]

Could we drop the debate as to whether or not we should be discussing this accident? :confused:
If you don't wish to be involved in the discussion, then don't.

Some posters have probably jumped to some dodgy conclusions,
at the end of the day though, if something happened out there that night that could happen to me with even the most careful planning, I want to know.
If the crew was at fault, if the the aircraft let them down, if the SOPs were lacking, I want to know.
If the weather forecasting, the regulations, fatigue or some other unknown factor was crucial, I want to know.

There is always something to learn from every discussion, every crash comic, every investigation report.
Keep up the questions and suggestions everybody, there is some good collective grey matter here. :ok:

[Atlas Shrugged]

He'll get straight into QF now.

or a gig doing ferries for C&H ;)

[GADRIVR]

"NOTE TO ALL JOURNOS"
The vast majority of posts on this subject have been made utilising exactly what most of us detest. Unreliable second, third or imaginary information sourced through hack reporters, unqualified apparent witnesses or overly active imaginations!
NONE of them have spoken to the flight crew.
NONE of them have spoken to the company/ies concerned.
NONE of them were on the aircraft.
Comments such as that espoused by Brian, Zeebee Wiley and others above summarise what this forum is all about.
Not a forum for "professional" pilots but rather a virtual open back laundry window where the little old women who sit peeling potatoes on the sidelines of this industry can shout across the rickety back fence discussing the other neighbours personal and work life for all to hear with little or scant regard for facts or indeed for the effect on the unfortunate neighbours life or the life of his or hers loved ones as a result of their drool filled utterings.
The analogy that Brian has used is at best non sensical and at its worst a call to arms for every enthusiastic moronic wannabe to further tarnish Doms reputation. Most "professional" pilots will back me up on this!
As for Brian, Zeebee, Wiley and the part time crew...listen up.
Just so that we're clear you slack jawed idiots....this NOT a bar. It is an online forum veiwable from virtually any part of the world open to all.....including the journos you and other "professional" pilots all have no time for.
For the last few days I've been fielding questions and enquiries from media friends and aquaintances as to the circumstances behind this incident. My standard reply is....."I don't know all the facts, so I can't give an informed opinion" It's amazing how many of them have quoted "facts" and "unnamed sources" that seem to closely parallel the drivel that is served up on this website. Wake up to yourselves and have some consideration for somebody elses career.......morons!:=:*:ugh:

[ZEEBEE]

Brian

Deadstick after all perhaps? In which case kudos for a good job in pulling it off if that be the case.

If it was TRULY a deadstick, then I think the the pilot did a good job in keeping the aircraft in a flying attitude until it hit something.
I don't think he would have had a clue where the water was in the conditions, and given that he was flying into a black hole, it would have been so easy to have allowed the aircraft to roll off the straight and level.

This accident has given me a new thing to be thankful for....I'm SO glad it wasn't me !!

[Dogimed]

GADRIVR Et al,

For crying out loud.. if you didnt want to read this you wouldn't have logged on. The mere fact you read the thread and then deride the posters for commenting is the most hypocrital thing... get lost if you dont want to know...

The title of this one isnt "Official ATSB Report" so why are you here?


On thread topic. John Sharp was the opposition minister during another successful ditching and I believe he was very vocal on the standards of the industry at the time.


Dog

[MyNameIsIs]

GADRIVR, not having a go but can you be absolutely certain that nobody here has talked to people that were actually in NLK and involved that very night, even though it might be 2nd or 3rd hand information?

Granted most people's posts are, for lack of a better word, 'uninformed', there is the reasonable possibility that others are not.


However... Any word on FDR/CVR (does the WW carry them?) and aircraft recovery? How deep is the water?
If the seas are as rough around NLK as some posters mention, then I'd imagine recovery would be quite difficult.

[Stikybeke]

FDR / CVR Recovery?

If they can find them that is....the clock is ticking...once immersed in water and the contact is activated isn't there a 60 day (max...) time limit before the sonar stops...(just remembering the metro into Botany Bay....)

:confused:

[Brian Abraham]

GADRIVR, listen up. Just so that we're clear you slack jawed idiot, I'm playing a bit part, in a very small way off forum, to helping Dominic out in this, to him, stressful time. I've walked in his shoes so don't for one minute attempt to lecture me. moron.

I can't speak for Wiley but I know for a fact that ZEEBEE has had a long, and I might say, distinguished career in things aeronautical. An old women peeling potatoes he ain't.

PS Please do check what the "R" in PPrune stands for. moron (merely added for emphasis, but I'll wake up hating myself in the morning)

[swh]

Has the Westwind got a ditching/water landing checklist in the QRH?

Yes it does, red hatching around the sides, tab 14.


DITCHING

PREPARATION

1. Communications ............................................................ .....MAYDAY
2. Transponder ............................................................ ........CODE 7700
3. Passengers ...........................................BRIEFED AND PREPARED
4. Cabin baggage ............................................................ .... SECURED
5. CABIN LIGHTS switch ........................................... BELTS/NO SMK
6. EMERG L T switch ............................................................ ........ ARM
7. Cabin altitude controller ................................... SET FOR DESCENT
8. Fuel DUMP pushbuttons ................................................... PUSH ON
(boosted dump required)

APPROACH

1. Cabin pressurization .................. MONITOR DEPRESSURIZATION
2. Landing gear lever ...................... UP; WARNING HORN CB - PULL
3. FLAPS lever ............................................................ .................... 40°
4. AIRSPEED bug and ADA indicator ........................ SET FOR VREF
(Figure 5-48)
5. Heading ........................................... PARALLEL TO MAIN SWELL

BEFORE TOUCHING WATER

1. Radar altimeter .................................................. SET FOR 50 FEET
2. Altitude ......................... NOSE UP; 10° deck angle when DH light
comes on (GO AROUND mode)
3. Thrust levers ............................................................ ......... CUT-OFF
4. FUEL SHUTOFF switches ................................................... CLOSE
5. BATTERY MASTER SWITCH .................................................. OFF

AFTER DITCHING

1. Pilot DV window .............................. OPEN to depressurize cabin
(alter removing loose articles
from window and console areas)
2. Emergency escape windows and door ................................ OPEN
WHICHEVER IS ABOVE WATER LEVEL
3. life Rafts ........................................... TIE static line to anchoring
point and prepare for deployment
4. LAUNCH AND BOARD LIFE RAFTS.

[GADRIVR]

Dogimed,
There is no hypocrisy in my previous post. Rather, I've posed the view that unfounded speculation posted on a web site that is accessed by the mainstream news media and held up to be truth is not contributing in a positive fashion to the flight crews careers. Indeed given that the fact that the REX group are actively pushing for route expansion as well as pushing for more medical evacuation work, it would be reasonable to assume that this incident will quickly become a political football.
My concern is purely for the flight crew in pointing what I have in the previous post. I'm assuming that you yourself are working in the industry. Put yourself in Dom and Zoes shoes for just one moment. Think about the pressures that they are facing right now apart from the obvious effects from last weeks ditching.
Think about that the fact that here is the mild possibility that regardless of the facts that exist, they may become scapegoats for an organisations shortcomings, whether that organisation be a government department, a company or not for profit organisation. All that work over 10 years or more for what??!!
Have you considered that or indeed that there but for the grace of God go you?
I'm not a hypocrite sport. Just a bloke who has given up God knows how much to be a part of this industry. I love it.
What I detest is the elements that exist within and on the fringes of this industry that seem to collectively possess the instincts of a reptile...not above eating its own young on occasion!
I was at a dinner with some senior types from a major health organisation over the last few days. Guess what the major point of conversation was?
Take another guess as to where these blokes were getting their info from? Thats right, you guessed it.....here and Crikey.
Do they care as to whether the "facts" quoted here are accurate or not. Nope.They seemed only worried about the political consequences and how it affected them and their careers. Nothing else.
So I can't say as to whether I know the facts or not. I don't profess to be "an expert of some standing whose opinion would be considered favourably in any court in the land" (I can't believe some pompous arse would post something like that!!!!).
The only thing I can say is that a political maestrom is brewing, and uninformed fools posting on this website aren't helping the crew, companies or people involved in any way, shape or form by giving an opinion here!

[the point]

About time someone posted something sensible.
If the rest of you lot had it your way Dom would already be tarred and feathered.
Can't wait to see the facts published, a few retractments might be forthcoming. Yeh right.

[Brian Abraham]

I'm sorry, I've obviously missed how you and others posting second hand info on a website such as this helps the crew
GADRIVR, or is that idiot? And Lester. Both of you failed comprehension heh? Read what is written. I wrote "OFF FORUM"

No wonder Pprune descends into bun fights. Sorry Mods.

[Jabawocky]

GADRIVR

If this whole thread never happened, the ditching did though.... the result would be the same for the crew. Their careers were screwed about the time the wx went bad. Thats prior to the swim and long before this thread even started.

Get used to the fact that this is the world we live in. What the media do with this thread and some very good thought provoking material is up to them. The fact is of course they research bugger all, but that will not change the state of the pilots future at all. Of course they were heroes a week ago until a few of us started to read the press and say.......hang on a minute!

I wish I could say it will be a lot better for them. It could have been a lot worse. :uhoh:

[boeingbender]

Listen, Brian Arbaham, Zeebee,Wiley & Others.
I am not arguing for the the plausibility of any specific other chain of events other than that which you guys already seems to have decided transpired out there the other night. Why - because I just don't KNOW and I was merely cautioning you to refrain from forming firmly held opinions (and voicing them in public) before some more FACTS are on the table. You guys are like a bunch of religious zealots purporting to KNOW without having access to the REAL FACTS, but that somehow the opinion you form based on what you BELIEVE to be true, just HAS to be true - because you believe it!

Ohh, and I am not saying don't discuss it, I am well aware of the nature of some of the most ardent contributors to this forum and hence spend very little time frequenting it. All I was trying to say, was that by publicly crucifying one of our colleagues before the best available facts are in, you are not doing him or his company any favors and that there COULD be mitigating circumstances explaining why they ended up in the drink. Just think about it for a second - if your methodology in accident investigation was meritorious, the ATSB would be completely superfluous.

So let me say it again - just back off a little, there MAY be more than what meets the eye:=

[Capt Fathom]

I think everyone needs a Bex and a good lie down. And a day off the keyboard! :E

Self included!

[Brian Abraham]

You guys are like a bunch of religious zealots purporting to KNOW Bollocks. Please PM a reference to where anyone has.

Interesting bit RECOMMENDATION : R20000040 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/recommendations/2000/r20000040.aspx)

Output No: R20000040
Date Issued: 22 February 2000
Background:

SUBJECT - RELIABILITY OF NORFOLK ISLAND FORECASTS

SAFETY DEFICIENCY

The meteorological forecasts for Norfolk Island are not sufficiently reliable on some occasions to prevent pilots having to carry out unplanned diversions or holding.

FACTUAL INFORMATION

Related Occurrences

During the period 1 January 1998 to 31 March 1999, occurrences involving unforecast or rapidly changing conditions at Norfolk Island reported to the Bureau included the following:

199801482

A British Aerospace 146 (BAe146) aircraft was conducting a regular public transport (RPT) passenger service from Sydney to Norfolk Island. The terminal area forecast (TAF) for Norfolk Island indicated that cloud cover would be 3 octas with a cloud base of 2,000 ft. Approaching Norfolk Island, the crew found that the area was completely overcast. After conducting an instrument approach, they determined that the cloud base was 600 ft, which was less than the alternate minima. Fuel for diversion to an alternate airfield was not carried on the flight because the forecast had not indicated any requirement.

199802796

Before a Piper Navajo Chieftain aircraft departed for an RPT passenger service from Lord Howe Island to Norfolk Island, the TAF for Norfolk Island did not require the carriage of additional fuel for holding or for diversion to an alternate airfield. Subsequently, the TAF was amended to require 30 minutes holding and then 60 minutes of holding. The pilot later advised that he became aware of the deteriorating weather at his destination only after he had passed the planned point of no return (PNR). However, the aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel to allow it to hold at Norfolk Island for 60 minutes. When the aircraft arrived in the Norfolk Island circuit area, the pilot assessed the conditions as unsuitable to land due to low cloud and rainshowers. After approximately 45 minutes of holding, the weather conditions improved sufficiently for the pilot to make a visual approach and landing.

199804317

A BAe146 aircraft was conducting an RPT passenger service from Brisbane to Norfolk Island. When the crew were planning the flight, the Norfolk Island TAF included a steady wind of 10 kt and thunderstorm conditions for periods of up to 60 minutes. Approximately 30 minutes after the aircraft departed, the TAF was amended to indicate a mean wind speed of 20 kt with gusts to 35 kt. As the aircraft approached its destination, the Unicom operator reported the wind as 36 kt with gusts to 45 kt. The crew attempted two approaches to runway 04 but conducted a go-around on each occasion because of mechanical turbulence and windshear. The pilot in command then elected to divert the aircraft to Auckland. The wind gusts at Norfolk Island did not decrease below 20 kt for a further 3 hours.

199900604

While flight planning for an RPT passenger service from Lord Howe Island to Norfolk Island, the pilot of a Piper Navajo Chieftain found that the TAF required the carriage of fuel sufficient for a diversion to an alternate aerodrome. As the aircraft was unable to carry sufficient fuel for the flight to Norfolk Island and then to an alternate aerodrome, the flight was postponed. Later in the day, the forecast was amended to require the carriage of 60 minutes of holding fuel and the flight departed carrying the additional fuel. Approximately 20 minutes after the aircraft departed Lord Howe Island and more than one hour before it reached its point of no return (PNR), the TAF was amended again to require the carriage of alternate fuel. The pilot did not request or receive this amended forecast and so continued the flight.

Following the flight's arrival overhead Norfolk Island, the pilot conducted a number of instrument approaches but was unable to land the aircraft due to the poor visibility. After being advised of further deteriorations in conditions, the pilot made an approach below the landing minima and landed in foggy conditions with a visibility of 800m. Subsequent investigation determined that the actual conditions at Norfolk Island were continuously below alternate minima for the period from 2.5 hours before the aircraft departed from Lord Howe Island until 6 hours after the aircraft landed.

Meteorological information

The Norfolk Island Meteorological Observing Office, which is staffed by four observers, normally operates every day from 0400 until 2400 Norfolk Island time. When one or more observers are on leave, the hours are reduced to 0700 until 2400 daily. Hourly surface observations by the observers, or by an automatic weather station when the office is unmanned, are transmitted to the Sydney Forecasting Office where they are used as the basis for the production and amendment of TAFs and other forecasts.

Weather conditions are assessed by instrument measurements, for example, wind strength, temperature and rainfall, or by visual observation when observers are on duty, for example, cloud cover and visibility. There is no weather-watch radar to allow the detection and tracking of showers, thunderstorms and frontal systems in the vicinity of the island. The wind-finding radar on Norfolk Island is used to track weather balloons to determine upper level winds six-hourly when observers are on duty. It cannot detect thunderstorms or rainshowers.

Pilots in the Norfolk Island area can contact the Met Office staff on a discrete frequency for information about the current weather conditions.

The reliability of meteorological forecasts is a factor in determining the fuel requirements. As forecasts cannot be 100% reliable, some additional fuel must be carried to cover deviations from forecast conditions.

A delay of one hour or more can exist between a change occurring in the weather conditions and advice of that change reaching a pilot. The change has to be detected by the observer or automatic weather station and the information passed to the Forecasting Office. After some analysis of the new information in conjunction with information from other sources, the forecaster may decide to amend the forecast. The new forecast is then issued to Airservices Australia and disseminated to the Air Traffic Services (ATS) staff who are in radio contact with the pilot. It is then the pilot's responsibility to request the latest forecast from ATS.

Alternate minima

Alternate minima are a set of cloud base and visibility conditions which are published for each airfield that has a published instrument approach procedure. The alternate minima are based on the minimum descent altitude and minimum visibility of each of the available instrument approaches. When the forecast or actual conditions at an airfield decrease below the alternate minima, aircraft flying to that airfield must either carry fuel for flight to an alternate airfield or fuel to allow the aircraft to remain airborne until the weather improves sufficiently for a safe landing to be conducted.

A pilot flying an aircraft that arrives at a destination without alternate or holding fuel and then finds that the weather is below landing and alternate minima is potentially in a hazardous situation. The options available are:

1. to hold until the weather improves; however, the fuel may be exhausted before the conditions improve sufficiently to enable a safe landing to be made;

2. to ditch or force-land the aircraft away from the aerodrome in a area of improved weather conditions, if one exists; or

3. attempt to land in poor weather conditions.

All of these options have an unacceptable level of risk for public transport operations.

The alternate minima for Norfolk Island are:

1. cloud base at or above 1,069 ft above mean sea level (AMSL) and visibility greater than 4.4 km for category A and B aircraft; and

2. cloud base at or above 1,169 ft AMSL and visibility greater than 6 km for category C aircraft.

The available alternate aerodromes for Norfolk Island are La Tontouta in Noumea (431 NM to the north), Lord Howe Island (484 NM to the south-west) and Auckland NZ (690 NM to the south-east). Lord Howe Island may not be suitable for many aircraft due to its short runway. Flight from Norfolk Island to an alternate aerodrome requires a large amount of fuel, which may not be carried unless required by forecast conditions or by regulations.

Australian regulations

Prior to 1991, the then Civil Aviation Authority published specific requirements for flights to island destinations. For example, flights to Lord Howe Island were required to carry fuel for flight to an alternate aerodrome on the mainland Australia, and flights to Norfolk Island and Cocos Island, where no alternate aerodromes were available, were required to carry a minimum of 2 hours of holding fuel.

In 1991, Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234 was enacted. This regulation provided that an aircraft would not commence a flight unless the pilot in command and the operator had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety. The regulation did not specify the method for determining what was sufficient fuel in any particular case. Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1(0) dated March 1991, provided guidelines which set out one method that could be used to calculate fuel requirements that would satisfy CAR 234. CAAP 234-1 did not contain any special considerations or requirements when planning a flight to an island destination.

In August 1999, Civil Aviation Order 82.0 was amended to require all charter passenger-carrying flights to Norfolk Island and other remote islands to carry fuel for the flight to their destination and to an alternate aerodrome. The alternate aerodrome must not be located on a remote island. This requirement to carry additional fuel does not apply to regular public transport flights to a remote island.

European Joint Aviation Regulation

The European Joint Aviation Regulation (Operations) 8.1.7.2 states: "at the planning stage, not all factors which could have an influence on the fuel used to the destination aerodrome can be foreseen. Consequently, contingency fuel is carried to compensate for ... deviations from forecast meteorological conditions."

Traffic levels

In February 2000, approximately 11 regular public transport aircraft land at Norfolk Island every week, including Boeing 737 and Fokker F100 aircraft. An additional 20 instrument flight rules and 12 visual flight rules flights are made to the island every week by a variety of business and general aviation aircraft.

ANALYSIS

Reports to the Bureau, including those detailed in the factual information section above, indicate that the actual weather conditions at Norfolk Island have not been reliably forecast on a number of occasions. Current regulations do not require pilots of regular public transport aircraft to carry fuel reserves other than those dictated by the forecast weather conditions. The safety consequences of an unforecast deterioration in the weather at an isolated aerodrome like Norfolk Island may be serious.

The present level of reliability of meteorological forecasts and the current regulatory requirements are not providing an adequate level of safety for passenger-carrying services to Norfolk Island.

SAFETY ACTION

As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (formerly the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation) recommends that the Bureau of Meteorology should review the methods used and resources allocated to forecasting at Norfolk Island with a view to making the forecasts more reliable.
Response from: Bureau Of Meteorology
Date Received: 27 April 2000
Response Status: Closed - Accepted
Response Text:

In response to your letter of 25 February 2000 relating to Air Safety Recommendation 20000040 and the reliability of meteorological forecasts for Norfolk Island, the Bureau of Meteorology has explored a number of possible ways to increase the reliability of forecasts for flights to the Island.

There are several factors which determine the accuracy and reliability of the forecasts. The first is the quality and timeliness of the baseline observational data from Norfolk Island itself. The second is the information base (including both conventional surface observational data and information from meteorological satellites and other sources) in the larger Eastern Australia-Southwest Pacific region. The third is the overall scientific capability of the Bureau's forecast models and systems and, in particular, their skill in forecasting the behaviour of the highly localised influences which can impact on conditions on Norfolk Island. And the fourth relates to the speed and responsiveness with which critical information on changing weather conditions (forecast or observed) can be conveyed to those who need it for immediate decision making.

As you are aware, the Bureau commits significant resources to maintaining its observing program at Norfolk Island. While the primary purpose of those observations is to support the overall large-scale monitoring and modelling of meteorological conditions in the Western Pacific, and the operation of the observing station is funded by the Bureau on that basis, it is staffed by highly trained observers with long experience in support of aviation. As far as is possible with available staff numbers, the observers are rostered to cover arrivals of regular flights and rosters are adjusted to cover the arrival of notified delayed flights.

The Norfolk Island Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF) is produced by experienced professional meteorologists located in the Bureau's New South Wales Regional Forecasting Centre in Sydney. The terminal forecast provides predictions of wind, visibility, cloud amount and base height and weather routinely every six hours. Weather conditions are continuously monitored and the terminal forecast is amended as necessary in line with air safety requirements. The forecasters have full access to all the Bureau's synoptic meteorological data for the region and guidance material from both Australian and overseas prediction models. As part of the forecasting process, they continuously monitor all available information from the region including the observational data from Norfolk Island itself. When consideration of the latest observational data in the context of the overall meteorological situations suggests the need to modify the terminal forecast, amendments are issued as quickly as possible.

Despite the best efforts of the Bureau's observing and forecasting staff, it is clear that it is not always possible to get vital information to the right place as quickly as it is needed and the inherent scientific complexity of weather forecasting means that occasional serious forecast errors will continue to be unavoidable. That said, the Bureau has carefully reviewed the Norfolk Island situation in order to find ways of improving the accuracy and reliability of its forecasts for aviation through a range of short and longer-term means.

As part of its strategic research effort in forecast improvement, the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre is undertaking a number of projects aimed at increasing scientific knowledge specifically applied to the provision of aviation weather services. Research projects are focussed on the detection and prediction of fog and low cloud and are based on extensive research into the science of numerical weather prediction. However, with the current level of scientific knowledge, the terminal forecasts for Norfolk Island cannot be expected to be reliable 100 percent of the time. Based on figures available for the period January 1998 to March 2000 (some 12 000 forecast hours), the Bureau's TAF verification system shows that for category A and B aircraft when conditions were forecast to be above the minima, the probability of encountering adverse weather conditions at Norfolk Island airport was 0.6%.

As part of its investigations, the Bureau has considered the installation of a weather watch radar facility at Norfolk Island with remote access in the NSW Regional Forecast Centre. Although routine radar coverage would enable the early detection of precipitation in the vicinity of the Island, investigations suggest that the impact of the radar images in improving forecast accuracy would be on the time-scale of one to two hours. This time frame is outside the point of no return for current aircraft servicing the route. It was concluded that the installation of a weather watch radar would be relatively expensive and would only partially address the forecast deficiencies identified in Air Safety Recommendation R20000040. The Bureau will however keep this option under review.

To increase the responsiveness of the terminal forecasts to changes in conditions at Norfolk Island, the Bureau has issued instructions to observing staff to ensure forecasters at the Sydney RFC are notified directly by telephone of any discrepancies between the current forecast and actual conditions. This arrangement will increase the responsiveness of the system particularly during periods of fluctuating conditions. In addition the Bureau has provided the aerodrome manager with access to a display of the latest observations to ensure the most up to date information is relayed to aircraft.

The Bureau is actively participating in the review of fuel requirements for flights to remote islands being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

I regret the delay in replying to your letter but the Bureau has felt it important to look carefully at all aspects of the Norfolk Island forecast situation and consider the full range of possibilities for forecast improvement within the resources available to us. We will continue to work on forecast improvement for Norfolk Island as resources permit.

I'll take two Bex Capt.

[GADRIVR]

Jabawocky.... I rest my case.....Geez, thank God you're not in the ATSB!:{
Brian....you just don't get it do you?:ugh:
I repeat....idiot!
I'm off to work!:ok:

[Colonel Braddock]

I've been shooting some approaches into Norfolk on the flight sim and also flown the same route from Apia to Norfolk, I had 3 goes at getting in and then diverted to Noumea with plenty of fuel on board.... head winds and all...

Don't know why they ditched! Sounds like not enough fuel up lifted to me!! :O

[GADRIVR]

Colonel,,,,,,Now THAT is a wind up!
To clarify my last comments BA.....I understand exactly what it is that you've posted. Interesting.
Now look at it through the eyes of a left leaning political aspirant who has been reading the newspapers and opinions posted here by so called experts to build himself/herself a case against the Rex group acquiring more business!
It then takes on a different tone. Geez:{
Now I'm really going to work!

[EXEK1996]

Lets face it Pel-Air have always been a second rate outfit. 3 WW1124's destroyed with fatalities so far?

The Vic Ambulance Service will learn the hard way.

Hopefully those that chartered this Flight will use JetCity Rescue next time. Very Professional and run by a Professional Pilot. I'm sure LC would never have allowed this to happen.

[BombsGone]

GADRIVR,
I understand your frustration with the tone and content of some of the posts. In particular direct attacks on the pilot and operator in many posts do not represent constructive comment. Additionally after the investigation is concluded it may show that some or all of the information provided by those with experience in flying to Norfolk island and other remote destinations is not relevent to the accident being discussed. That is always the way with such discussions without access to the source data. However I for one have learnt something from posts such as Brians above and do not want to see the discussion degenerate into a slanging match.
As for the media they initially bought the company line, then put out reports saying an investigation is going on and have now shut up. Not as bad as it could be for the crew and generally positive. If they are shown to have done a competent job in the circumstances I'm sure it will all come out in the long run and the pilot community will back them.
In the mean time I have been interested in how other people have attacked the problem of remote island operations and as Brians post shows some have been lucky rather than good!
Bombs

[chainsaw]

GADRIVR,

As BombsGone said at post #357:

I understand your frustration with the tone and content of some of the posts...

I can also understand that, but what I can't understand GADRIVR is your comment at post#353 which on the face of it, appears to be directed in response to Brian's post at #352 which in reality is just a repeat of an ATSB Recommendation (R20000040).

You said:

Brian....you just don't get it do you?
I repeat....idiot!

I omitted your smilies in the quote! I give up GADRIVR. What doesn't Brian get, and why's Brian an idiot for quoting an ATSB Recommendation? :eek:

Re-read what Bryan said WRT Australian Regulations as follows:

In 1991, Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234 was enacted. This regulation provided that an aircraft would not commence a flight unless the pilot in command and the operator had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety. The regulation did not specify the method for determining what was sufficient fuel in any particular case. Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1(0) dated March 1991, provided guidelines which set out one method that could be used to calculate fuel requirements that would satisfy CAR 234. CAAP 234-1 did not contain any special considerations or requirements when planning a flight to an island destination.

In August 1999, Civil Aviation Order 82.0 was amended to require all charter passenger-carrying flights to Norfolk Island and other remote islands to carry fuel for the flight to their destination and to an alternate aerodrome. The alternate aerodrome must not be located on a remote island. This requirement to carry additional fuel does not apply to regular public transport flights to a remote island.

That's really not so hard to undestand, is it?

Apart from that, I agree with you that everyone here needs to 'calm down' and let the ATSB and/or CASA work out what happened and why it happened.

[JetA_OK]

EXEK1996; only a fool tries to use a safety concern to win a commercial argument in aviation. Professionals certainly don't, so I am sure LC and the team at JetCity will think your a plonker as well and won't thank you for including them in your little spray :hmm:

Whatever your outside perceptions of Pel-Air, they have been around for a very long time and have kept a loyal long term customer base throughout (some of them for their entire existence). I can't think of too many people over the years who have convinced a Pel-Air customer to change teams. I can't imagine why Vic Air Ambulance would be any different, or NSW if they win it.

[boeingbender]

Chainsaw, I believe GADRIVR's frustration with Brian was caused by his response to my statement that;
You guys are like a bunch of religious zealots purporting to KNOW to which Brian responded;
Bollocks. Please PM a reference to where anyone has.So let me just take the first line in Brian's original assertion that I quoted earlier where Brian says;

2. No mayday or other communication was given regarding a possible ditching ergo ditching was unintentional ergo CFITLets first define the word "ergo". My thesaurus says it means;
ergo [ˈɜːgəʊ]sentence connector therefore; hence[from Latin: therefore]
Adv.1.ergo - (used as a sentence connector) therefore or consequently.

The first part of the quoted sentence is used to ascertain that there was no mayday or other communication given. Based on the absence of a radio call, Brian then draws the consequence that the ditching was unintentional, ie he purports to KNOW that we are dealing with a CFIT.

Whilst there might be some merit in saying that there is a possibility that the absence of a Mayday call could be because the flight crew had unintentionally impacted water, there are literally dozens of OTHER, some would claim equally plausible explanations why a radio call was not forthcoming?

You only need to tune in 121.5 for a few hours flight to hear the "guard police" jumping all over some poor hapless soul that had intended to talk to his company and accidentally had the wrong frequency tuned, so is it not possible that perhaps they in the heat of the moment had managed to tune the wrong frequency? Is that not a plausible explanation for the missing Mayday call?

Also, show me a pilot who claims to never have accidentally omitted a Mayday call while wiping his sweaty hands hanging on for his dear life to the controls whilst practicing emergencies in the simulator, and I'll show you a person who deal with the truth lightly.

Or perhaps the radio could be U/S, or the microphone selector pushed to some other radio, or a complete or partial electrical failure and the list goes just goes on and on.

My point remains that we must not claim to KNOW, when we at this stage only have circumstantial evidence to build a case.

It doesn't take much imagination to picture the level of tension, nerves and apprehension present in the cockpit after a few go-arounds in the pea soup on a dark and stormy night at Norfolk, as the options are being narrowed down with diminishing fuel reserves - exactly to what level they had reduced, will no doubt be established as the FACTS are being established by the organization tasked with investigating this incident.

Brian, again with respect - I just believe that we would be well advised to take a step back with the speculation. The Internet is NOT a hotel-bar, where you can judge your audience based on how well you know them or how many beers they buy you. An opinion voiced in a public forum is instantly ALL OVER THE INTERNET, to anyone interested in the matter at hand and the clueless journos in this country get most of their so-called "expert advise" from places like PPRUNE, so your speculations goes instantly MUCH further that you had possibly intended.

Cheers guys - I'm off to work too.....

[Anthill]

By shear coincidence my wife and I saw a stage play of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" last week.

Sadly, I see GADRIVR as a kind of John Proctor...:rolleyes:

[chainsaw]

Oh dear.............

It doesn't take much imagination to picture the level of tension, nerves and apprehension present in the cockpit after a few go-arounds in the pea soup on a dark and stormy night at Norfolk, as the options are being narrowed down with diminishing fuel reserves - exactly to what level they had reduced, will no doubt be established as the FACTS are being established by the organization tasked with investigating this incident.

:eek:

Where's on earth is the evidence that the night in question's now all of a sudden become a 'dark and stormy' one boeingbender? :ugh:

You only need to tune in 121.5 for a few hours flight to hear the "guard police" jumping all over some poor hapless soul that had intended to talk to his company and accidentally had the wrong frequency tuned, so is it not possible that perhaps they in the heat of the moment had managed to tune the wrong frequency? Is that not a plausible explanation for the missing Mayday call?

C'mon boeingbender, just how many "guard police" do you think were around Norfolk at the time your 'scenario' was supposed to be taking place???

Long bow I'm afraid! :ugh:

As suggested previously........maybe it's time for folks to take a bit of 'time out' here, stop the speculation, and to give this thread a bit of a rest for the time being to let reality catch up with/overtake fantasy?

[ThePassingBay]

Captain saves six landing jet on ocean | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2738247/Captain-saves-six-landing-jet-on-ocean.html)

[KABOY]

I'm sorry, but while the press turn this into a hero story I feel all comments on pprune are fair,no matter what their stance is.

Someone is manipulating the media without all the facts and when they are bought to light there will be no headlines from the media, as that same person will use their press manipulation to gag it.

May the healthy debate continue in the hope that the facts will be revealed. But the way I see it, this airplane was a long way down a one way road that had the sign DEAD END ahead.:(

[Freewheel]

Nagging thought in the back of my mind;

Was Norfolk the intended destination on departure?

Would we think differently if it turned out Norfolk was in fact the alternate?


I have no actual information, but since everybody else is chiming in with hair brained and half developed thoughts, I might as well join in.....

[Car RAMROD]

NLK was a refuelling stop on their way to MEL.

[GADRIVR]

Anthill

“I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours.”

Funny!!!! well thought out from an insult point of view I think! Touche!
Never was partial to servant girls though!!!:E
You really must stop making these references though. This crowd possibly wouldn't get it!

"She's a witch burn her" would probably be more accurate!!!!!

[Jabawocky]

GADRVR

How do you know for sure I am not with the ATSB?

Since when has the ATSB been determining the future careers of pilots...:ugh:

Get over it mate..... They sealed their fate long before they went for a swim and longer before this thread started. FACT

So I hope you have a safe evening as you clearly would not like the reality of the big wide world should you suffer an incident of a similar magnitude.

Bottom line is these folk have a screwed career path, unlike Skiles and Sully who the press imediately compared them to.

No comparing in any way apart from salt water and a wet aircraft!

[boeingbender]

C'mon boeingbender, just how many "guard police" do you think were around Norfolk at the time your 'scenario' was supposed to be taking place???
Sorry Chainsaw, but you missed my point about the "guard police" pretty comprehensively. My point was merely to illustrate that it is a pretty common occurrence for us to make a transmission on the wrong frequency. I am well familiar with the amount of traffic on the VHF frequencies in that part part of the Pacific and it only strengthens my point in that a pilot transmitting on the wrong frequency will have less chance of a friendly chappy popping up 8 milli-seconds after the transmission is made alerting you to the fact that you are indeed not transmitting on the frequency you intended.

And as far as dark and stormy is concerned, it most certainly was dark as there was a new moon on the night in question. There was also rain showers on and off, but ohh-right. It wasn't windy enough to call it a storm, I give you that. I still reckon I have used less poetic license in all this compared to some other posters on this forum.:rolleyes:

[j3pipercub]

I get the distinct feeling GADRIVR has a vested interest in the Rex group somehow... Or knows one of the drivers.

As far as the accident is concerned, thank god (or who-ever you pray to) they all got out ok, as it would appear on face value that the pilots didn't have much to do with it. And let's lay off the Cleo thing. There is a very small part of all of us that would if we could...

The Crucible? Nah never heard of it. I is just a under-edjamicated pile-it. Millers metaphor for McCarthyism/Communist witch-hunt in 1950's Hollywood if I remember correctly...

j3

[601]

Has anyone seen a media release from the ATSB in relation to this accident?

[megan]

CASA Media Release - Monday 23 November 2009

Special safety audit after Norfolk ditching

A special audit of two air operators is being carried out by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority following the ocean ditching of a Westwind jet near Norfolk Island last week.

CASA is auditing elements of the operator of the aircraft, Pel-Air Aviation, as well as Regional Express Pty Ltd. Pel-Air is a member of the Regional Express group.

The special audit will look at a range of areas that may relate to the ditching of VH-NGA on Wednesday 18 November 2009.

CASA’s special audit is being carried out in addition to an investigation of the accident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The CASA audit will not pre-empt the findings of this investigation.

Areas to be examined include fuel policies and practice, flight planning, in-flight operations during changing weather conditions, the check and training of pilots, safety management systems and the inter-relationships between Pel-Air and Regional Express.

CASA has already written to the companies requiring a range of relevant documentation to be supplied.

A request has also been made to interview the pilots of the aircraft that ditched.

Media contact:
Peter Gibson
mobile: 0419 296 446
Ref: MR9009

[Brian Abraham]

Interview with Glen Robertson Norfolk Island's airport manager.

Miracle landing on Norfolk Island - Radio National Breakfast - 20 November 2009 (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2748255.htm)

Ditched 2 kilometers west and weather cleared 20 minutes after ditching.

[chainsaw]

...so is it not possible that perhaps they in the heat of the moment had managed to tune the wrong frequency?

No, I don't think so, but it would depend on the operator's SOPs, whether VHF#2 had been used to monitor 121.5 during cruise, and whether it remained on that frequency during the descent and approaches.

Is that not a plausible explanation for the missing Mayday call?

Yes! That is not a plausible explanation. :}

But, why don't we leave this for the ATSB to work out boeingbender?

[truth boy]

Does anyone know what the RFDS's report card looks like in regards to incidents/accidents/fatalities ???

[acementhead]

There is no need for anyone to be concerned about Captain James' future. He has been turned into a hero by the media, sans any relevant facts, and when the truth finally comes out the media will NOT say "We were morons rushing to judgement." the media will ignore the fact that they were wrong. The media NEVER admit that they were wrong(Example "Sadam Hussein, 911, Anthrax, WMD terrorism" parroted over and over again, all lies.)

Captain James has been anointed a hero by the media and a hero he will remain. he is destined for great fortune(well multi multi millions anyway; great fortune by our, the great unwashed's standards).

I predict that he will be starring in the fictional movie that will be made and from there will be able to proceed to a brilliant career as Celebrity Inseminator. At only $10,000 per cover and two covers per week he will be getting a million a year. A nice little addition to the multi millions from the movie.

[Capt Fathom]

A similar incident (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=69363) is being discussed on another Pprune Forum. I am somewhat surprised it hasn't been hijacked by the D&G experts!

[Runaway Gun]

If the guy has made a mistake, then he will surely suffer.

But some of you people are just too holy to ever do the same. Judged and convicted before the court is even assembled.

I feel sorry for him, regardless of the outcome.

[acementhead]

Why would anyone change to 121.5 to make a mayday call out at NI when they were operating NI radio(or unicom or what whatever its called now?) Why not make it on the frequency which you KNEW was being received locally? And further, if there was little(or no) other traffic operating the frequency I would even dispense with the three repetitions of Mayday and call-sign. One is enough. The meaning is clear. One Mayday, declare emergency, declare intentions.

[acementhead]

No captain fathom this is NOT an "incident". Clearly you know nothing of aviation, if you did you'd have called it what it is(and that is DEFINED by law; at least it is in NZ and I'd bet in Aus as well).

[acementhead]

And yes Capt Fathom lots of us ARE experts. I have as much experience and knowledge as some NZ accident investigators and MUCH higher intellect. I have no doubt whatsoever, judging by what I've read here, that quite a few are as experienced, knowledgeable and able as I.

[acementhead]

GADRIVR do you have a potential interest in the money river that will soon be flowing in Captain James' direction? Not implying that you do, just wondering. it would explain a bit.

[acementhead]

The interview was a disgrace. It was a piece of "woman fluff". She basically made statements for the hapless interviewee to confirm.

[boeingbender]

I would even dispense with the three repetitions of MaydayAhh, such a level headed aviator:rolleyes:

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20!!

Sitting in front of your keyboard telling the world what YOU would have done carries little significance and even less credibility. The whole point is, we do not yet know what THEY did. Fortunately, they are all alive to tell the story and it will come out in the wash.

Listen, for all I know he could have transmitted on the Grafton CTAF or not at all. I was just trying to highlight the fact that absence of a radiocall on the expected and monitored frequency DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS A CFIT INCIDENCE.

ACEMENTHEAD, you should be awarded a PPRUNE award for the most apt username , but perhaps you may wish to shake it up a little and try this:ugh:

[Capt Fathom]

I have as much experience and knowledge as some NZ accident investigators and MUCH higher intellect

Well, you do call yourself Ace!

Perhaps you may need some more fibre in your diet?

[acementhead]

Your link does not lead to any PPRuNe discussion. In fact it doesn't lead to any discussion board at all. Is this another example of your care with facts?

[tail wheel]

Can we cool this thread? It is getting to be 99% noise, 1% fact.

Please spare a thjought for the Mods that must read every post...... :{ A number of irrelevent or unacceptable posts have already been deleted.

If we can't stick to professional debate and known facts, we may be forced to close the thread until further facts are published in the public domain!

:mad:

[acementhead]

My sig is a deliberate bait to elicit ad hominems and thus show the paucity of thinking power of the responder. Thank for playing.

[acementhead]

I don't post here much(although I have posted more than shows in my record). I am interested in facts and truth(you know the old "the truth shall set you free" thing. Ah freedom aerobattng* a DH82 out of a grass field on clear winter day, oh for the olden days.) I became interested in this topic because of the ENORMOUS hero creation by the media. I consider it utterly disgraceful and this appears to be the only place to try to introduce some balance.

Has PPRuNe morphed into PPFactNe?


* Anyone know if aerobatting should have one t or two?

[hazymist]

Has the Westwind got a ditching/water landing checklist in the QRH? Yes it does, red hatching around the sides, tab 14. No mention of donning life jackets - is there more on the next tab ? Surely jackets should be listed under 'preparation' ?

If they did follow that checklist then the battery master switch would be off at splashdown, ie no landing lights to see the water and no cockpit lights ?:ouch:

The amount of fuel they had on initial arrival at the island is revealed by the number of approaches they did, ie how long does an approach take ? 10-15 mins ? 3 approaches means they had approx 45mins fuel. Nearest divert at least an hour away ? They had no options once they descended.

Many factors not being considering in this 'discussion' - I'll throw in just a couple - were the aircraft and navigations aids fully serviceable, how tired were the crew / how long had they been on duty, were all the airfield lights working ?

I thought salt water was good for infected wounds :E

[GADRIVR]

J3pipercub.......no vested interest as such. I just can't abide witch hunts!
By the way......in relation to Anthills post, I'm feeling more like Abigal the servant girl. First they want to f**k then they want to burn me!!!! I don't win either way.
Personally I think the only significant thing that Miller ever achieved was playing hide the sausage with Marilyn baby!

[Andu]

Could I suggest to boeingbender and GADRIVR with their hypotheses about wrong frequency selections and Guard police that they might do well to apply Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.html)

[QSK?]

It would be interesting to compare the number of incidents arising from incorrect forecasting with those occuring prior to 1990 when there was an FSU located at NLK staffed with BoM qualified weather observers.

In those days, the FSU would have been responsibile for maintaining an "operational information watch" on each inbound aircraft and, as a result, had a responsibility to immediately notify any aircraft within 1 hour's flying time of any deterioration in weather below speci/altn criteria on both the destination and nominated alternate aerodromes. This early notification afforded pilots sufficient lead time to divert safely to any planned alternate or to return to the departure aerodrome prior to PNR if required.

However, with the removal of this FSU initiated service sometime around 1992, the onus now rests squarely with the PIC to take the initiative to update themselves on the latest conditions at both the destination and alternate aerodromes (preferably before reaching their PNR or latest point of safe diversion). ATC now only provides a directed service to aircraft for hazardous weather events (e.g. Sigmets); the availability of all other weather is only available from ATC on pilot request.

Since the change in 1992, I am constantly amazed at how many IFR pilots don't bother to update themselves on the terminal conditions at their destination and alternate aerodromes once becoming airborne, particularly when it is known that the destination weather is forecast or reported marginal.

I don't know whether the Unicom operator at NLK is a met approved observer or not, but one safety initiative that may need to be considered by CASA for island destinations (e.g. NLK, Cocos, Christmas etc) is to ensure that a Unicom/CAGRS operator is always in attendance for aircraft arrivals at island destinations, holds approved BoM observer qualifications and is supported by the re-introduction of operational information watch responsibilities under a LOA with the aircraft operator.

[dogcharlietree]

and it will come out in the wash.


Trust me. Official reports are like statistics. You can make them appear to give whatever outcome the originator desires.

F'instance: Northwest Airlines Flight 188 suffered a "loss of situational awareness" on Oct. 21. Like these guys were not asleep.:= Laptops???? :suspect:

These forums are loaded with a wealth of information. All the reader has to do is filter the "wannabees" and "armchair critics" from the "been there and done that" poster. If you are in the latter group, then this is not hard. :ok:

[crossingclimb]

dogcharlietree: very sensible post

tailwheel: mods have a difficult job.

My suggestion: in some online versions of popular newspapers (eg UK Daily Mail) readers of comments (posted by other readers) on articles on the website can vote approve/disapprove on these posts.

Each poster ID only gets one such vote on each post by other readers.

See here for an example:

Shear lunacy: No beating about the bush for gardener who brought in a CRANE to mow his lawn | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230529/Shear-lunacy-No-beating-bush-gardener-brought-CRANE-mow-lawn.html)


In the Mail's system, readers can select to read only those previous posts which have the best ratings.

Suitably tweaked for Pprune, this would mean that we could choose to read only the posts which had been judged by the majority of previous readers of that thread to be worth reading. Equally, we could choose to see all, and skip past those that had a net negative rating.

Huge saving of time and effort for readers of long threads, and those posts attracting high negative scores might help mods focus their efforts.

[The Green Goblin]

All the rumours aside, I just want to know if he stalled :}

PLAAAAAAANKY!

Oh and does this mean Dunza is going to get the Pel-Airs medivac contracts in his fleet of brand spanking new Caravans? :p

[tinpis]

* Anyone know if aerobatting should have one t or two?

Ah, for the freedom of the olden days,
The grass field and aerobatics in a DH82 on a clear winter day.....


:hmm:

[megan]

From Aviation International News today.

Capt. Dominic James and first officer Zoe Cupit had a tough decision to make after three missed approaches during their attempt to land at Norfolk Island in the South Pacific. They were flying a medical transport–a female patient and her husband–from Apia, Western Samoa, to Melbourne, Australia. The pilots planned to land the Pel-Air charter Westwind II at Norfolk (1,473 nm from Apia) to pick up fuel, but upon arrival the cloud base was at 200 feet, according to Pel-Air. After three VOR approach attempts, the pilots elected to ditch the Westwind. It was dark, about 9:30 p.m. on November 18, and there was a five-foot swell. The pilots kept the landing gear retracted but deployed full flaps. “The aircraft was intact after landing, [the] patient and her husband and all crew [two pilots and two others] exited immediately and were in the water for about 90 minutes before being rescued by a fishing boat launched by the local rescue squad,” Pel-Air told AIN. “He made the right decision to carry out a controlled ditching rather than to persist with further attempts to land.” The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the ditching.

[dogcharlietree]

The grass field and aerobatics in a DH82 on a clear winter day.....
Now ditching a DH82a was a real skill and feat to carry out successfully :ok:

[601]

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the ditching.
Is this a fact or media speculation. There is still nothing on the ATSB web site in relation to this accident.

[acementhead]

Tinpis I take it that you are accusing me of plagiarism. Not guilty. I've never read those or similar words. I spend negligible time reading aviation stuff. No magazines in last 20 years. Last book; Fate is the Hunter ~40 ya.

I entered the string "The grass field and aerobatics in a DH82 on a clear winter day" (with quotes) into Google and came up with ZERO matches. I despise cliché and do my own thinking.

HarveyGee would confirm the veracity of what I say.

[acementhead]

Logbook excerpt from 1960, at photobucket, with winter DH82 aeros.


logbook.jpg picture by acementhead - Photobucket (http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/acementhead/?action=view&current=logbook.jpg)

Yes my 19 year old printing is very messy. My 69 yo is just as bad.

[prospector]

acementhead,
Thread drift, but maybe it needs it.

My log shows a dual check with Peter Selby in DH82 BCO 12 May 1960, and the printing is just as scruffy.

And when I turn the page I get BCO again, on 14th May, trying to master a slow roll in DH82 with Peter Selby. Cannot remember how much altitude was required at the start, but it would have been a lot.

[acementhead]

prospector. thanks. Pete Selby. what a great guy. Never cavilled at putting on the flying suit, unlike someone else, and the midair; just magnificent.

Sorry that I'm so intent on defending my integrity.

[GADRIVR]

Acementhead. I'm not sure what sort of integrity you're referring to in regards to what you may be defending so I'll leave that alone.
I do however recognise an amateur "expert"

Leave the postulating in a public forum to the real experts. You know, people who do this day in and day out on a professional basis. Not an angry little Kiwi with a bad case of "tall poppitis". Whats the matter mate, upset that maybe somebody else may be getting kudos for getting a difficult job done?
Must be hard sitting in the nursing home having the old girls and young female nurses ooggling young Capt James after just one one incident when you've spent years tring to elicit the same reaction with tales of "there I was". Fumbling about in a bugsmasher just doesn't cut it does it mate? Must be hard to accept that. Thats OK darling I understand:E

[prospector]

GADRVR,

You really are pathetic. What type one was driving fifty years ago gives no insight into what one has achieved in the interim.

For your info there are still people holding down jobs driving aeroplanes well into their sixties, and in all that time never ran the tanks dry.

[bdcer]

PLEASE gents & ladies, can we stop the personal attacks. We're professionals & on public display. If you really want to 'fight' use private messaging.
Cheers All

[Captain Sand Dune]

Speculation is one thing - after all this is a rumour network.
However this has degenerated into a personal slanging match by some of those whom should know better.
Mods - do that voodoo that you do, and perhaps we'll resurrect this when the ATSB have had their say.

[Spinnerhead]

GADRIVR

Playing the man is an indication that you cannot play the ball. You are starting to look really foolish now.

[boeingbender]

Could I suggest to boeingbender and GADRIVR with their hypotheses about wrong frequency selections and Guard police that they might do well to apply Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.html)Andu, that is an interesting proposition in a philosophical context, but I believe it is inappropriate and misplaced in an investigation into an accident or occurrence. It would imply that once you have identified A SINGLE PLAUSIBLE causation, the job is done and you can move on. This however, is a methodology completely contrary to what is required by an accident investigator, as he need to examine EVERY POSSIBLE scenario, exclude them after they are found IMPLAUSIBLE and move on narrowing it down to the most plausible explanation(s).

I don't really want to be a party-pooper and recognize the desire to speculate on why this happened. I have only tried to lower certain self-pronounced experts in their eagerness to show us all how clever they are in using their vast intellect
I have as much experience and knowledge as some NZ accident investigators and MUCH higher intellect to explain to us dumb-arses who prefer to wait until the facts are on the table. This whole discussion is leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth and a sense of embarrassment on behalf of members of my profession, so I shall remove myself from PPRUNE for another few years and leave the sand box to you kids (I am not including you Andu in this assessment) - young and old.
See ya'll later.

[zanzibar]

QSK.

No, I don't recall that the Unicom fellow is an accredited Met observer, but, nor does he need to be as there is a fully staffed Met office on the airfield at NLK.

When I operated there on a regular and reasonably recent basis, the information provided by Unicom when the weather turned to crap was of a very high standard and of great use in making decisions. In these circumstances it was not uncommon for NLK to deploy observers onto each threshold to give immediate and accurate appraisals of the actual weather to support that info being given via Unicom from the Met office which, incidentally, has a radar facility to to facilitate their information. I would be extremely surprised if it was any different last Wednesday evening.

In the case of NLK, Unicom is manned for every arrival so, whilst your suggestions as to a safety initiative are appropriate, they nevertheless occur anyway on NLK irrespective of any legislative requirement etc.

[megan]

prospector, GADRIVR admits to 2100, MECIR, 100 ME, cabin class twin time and been in the business for not quite 5 years. Tut, tut, you should know better than argue with one of your betters who fields such vast experience. := You know he did say "Leave the postulating in a public forum to the real experts. You know, people who do this day in and day out on a professional basis." I'll interpret for you (free service), he means him.

Whats your beverage prospector, my buy. :ok:

Mods, I think Captain Sand Dune has the right idea, lock it.

[troppo]

puerile - Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Puerile \Pu"er*ile\, a. [L. puerilis, fr. puer a child, a boy:
cf. F. pu['e]ril.]
Boyish; childish; trifling; silly.
[1913 Webster]

Ppruners have been notorious through generations for
their puerile affectation of accidents, incidents and occurances --De Troppo.
[1913 Webster]

Syn: Youthful; boyish; juvenile; childish; trifling; weak.
See Youthful.
[1913 Webster]



puerile - WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) :

puerile
adj 1: of or characteristic of a child; "puerile breathing"
2: displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; "adolescent
insecurity"; "jejune responses to our problems"; "their
behavior was juvenile"; "puerile jokes" [syn: adolescent,
jejune, juvenile, puerile]

puerile - Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :

31 Moby Thesaurus words for "puerile":
asinine, babish, babyish, beardless, boyish, boylike, calflike,
childish, childlike, coltish, foolish, girlish, girllike, immature,
inconsequential, infantile, infantine, insignificant,
irresponsible, juvenile, kiddish, maiden, maidenly, puplike,
puppyish, puppylike, ridiculous, shallow, silly, sophomoric,
trivial

[truth boy]

It's funny you know. I talked to a few of the pilots I am close to about this site. They laughed as well as a few other things I can't say. This thread has sunk further than a certain little jet we all know. Absolute gold. What little industry respect this place has is lost with each new post. Gold

[tinpis]

Er...acementhead, I did not intend to infer plagerism at all, rather help you couch the sentence in a way that you need not use aerobatterededed

Btw, ZK- BCO I think may have ended its days stuck in a gorse hedge in Ohaupo?
Ran out of petrol on the ferry home after an aerobatic session in Te Kuiti Shearer type chap at the controls but unhurt, Graham Swanson? Subsequently killed in a Rural C180. Prospector would possibly remember
Got PA18-90 BTQ and BQS in me book, who owned the PA18-150's?

[Much Ado]

Idiots:ugh: