I'm sure that saved some $$$. Oh dear. Interesting on the legal point though, maybe liability on providing erroneous info would be a concern?

Wasn't my fault Your Worship, the BoM/ATC/Company policy/Jodie Foster made me do it... :ugh::ugh: :yuk:

Responsibility for operational control passed to company/pilot 20 odd years ago.

The fact that the PIC has a range of specified responsibilities does not absolve everyone else from any or all responsibilities. :=

Hempy,

If only things were as simple as your interpretation of that CAR.

Pretty simple, you know ****, you tell people what they need to know. Not hard really. Pity when part of the **** you're being fed is flawed & broken ****.

'Creamy' that's quite true....BUT & yes there's always a but a coroner of such an event as an airframe loss with the resulting loss of life (not an entirely unimaginable scenario with the core subject here) will be heavily influenced by the pilots insurance Co. whom would be looking to be absolved from their responsibilities (payout) due possible pilot error or pilot ability or lack thereof to fly within the current Regs.
Someone has to pay & the man at the steering wheel is at the top of the hit list & is a prime target with Regs already in place that put the responsibility squarely on him/her, it's up to the pilots estate to prove otherwise.
I'd say that should the above ever happen then it would be a huge legal nightmare.
Thank Christ we are only discussing the regs as far as fuel req's go & the limitations of outside agencies....phew !



Wmk2

Wal, lawyers chase whose got the money, not whose in the wrong, mmmmm, what organisations involved in aviation have money? Not you Wal!

'JR Ewing':E All Ins Co's would be looking to get out of a claim anyway they can, that's what I was trying to allude to obviously not very well:sad:

No money here JR, spent it all on the ex wives!:E


Wmk2

Reg 224 is not a rule that can be broken.

Why on earth would heavy metal pilots have policies of insurance for property damage and loss of life? :confused: The best insurance is to be worth a buck…. :ok:

The TAF is a forecast,it is not a guarantee that it will happen.We have PROB30,PROB40 and PROB50 or greater which is the TAF.So we have up to PROB 50 that it may be wrong.If you operate an aircraft on the basis that the TAF is 100 percent correct without a plan B you WILL be caught out sooner or later.

CAR 224.
So this CAR puts all the onus on the PIC for the safe operations of the aircraft. Fair enough.

So where does the man in front of the computer screen with little aircraft symbols moving across it come into the picture?

Does he not pass on to the PIC information, in the form of directions, that to avoid a collision, the PIC should turn to heading, descent, climb, etc. As the PIC does not have the information presented on the screen, he/she cannot comply with CAR 224 even though it would present a danger to the safety of the aircraft.

So what happens when a SPECI is presented to the man with the computer screen that would affect the safety of one of those little aircraft on the screen?

Would not that fall into the same category of information as what is presented on the screen and should be passed on to the PIC?

From a practical point of view, I agree 100%.
How about from the legal point of view, assuming your statement if correct? Why are operators fuel policies not required to make provision for such instances?

The next dilemma is which alternate should be used from a flight planning perspective? Should it have been YPED, YMML, YPWR or YMIA? Which one should be nominated? As we have seen, two separate airfield had unforecast deterioration below the lowest available landing minima.

The only viable solution in this case was simply to "gas it up" to MLW on the basis of CAVOK forecasts.

I keep raising it, but I believe the forecasts went from PROB30 fog to below minima fog in one step. And I suspect that change was AFTER the fog had formed.

Frankly, if when can't get better weather information than this 1 hour ahead of time, then the issue of fuel reserves is just academic.

The things to focus on are getting first world weather forecasting and first world air navigation facilities rather than trying to compensate with additional fuel & sheer piloting skills.

CAR 224 would be grounds for a pay rise would it not.

When we had operational control, ATC was repsonsible for passing operational info to pilots. With the demise of ops control, the responsibility for passing this info went to the company. However, as I previously posted, ATC pass hazardous wx/amended forecasts etc if you are within 1 hour of the situation at the time the amendment is received by ATC (per AIP)
Also AIP 3.3-5 para 2.5.2 says "When providing FIS, ATC will not alert pilots to the availability of aerodrome weather reports that are available from an automatic broadcast service."
Mildura AWIS is available on 113.7 -includes vis cloud temp dewpoint.
Adelaide avbl from numerous AERIS sites including Mt Canobolas and Broken Hill (suitable for both these flights)
From ERSA, flights within 90NM of primary control zone are catered for by ATIS.
The AMD TAF Adelaide and first TTF forecasting fog were both issued over an hour prior to ETA.
By the time the first Mildura SPECI was issued, it looks to me that they were probably committed to Mildura and the amended TAF was way too late.
I don't know what info ATC provided to the pilots or when. Just a response to those critical of our current procedures - not saying they won't change as a result of the final report.

One step further than that, TD: since ATC knew what the latest conditions were, they would determine what endurance was required and then ask for your actual endurance to ensure compliance with the rules.

The MIA AWIS was U/S at the time.

I recall this definition from a previous life in ATC:

"Operational control is the exercise of authority over the initiation, continuation, diversion and termination of IFR flight in controlled airspace"

This exercise of authority can not reasonably be held to be the total responsibility of the PIC.

Companies, CASA and Airservices should stop passing the buck.

Of course, in another age, it would have been possible, and recommended, to simply call YMIA FS and get the actual.....direct.

"Your safety will be enhanced, and, it will cost you less"......??

:{

Mrs Nomer, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't YMIA OUTSIDE CTA, therefore under the "old" rules is NOT suitable as an ALTN??:uhoh: