Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Merged: Pel-Air Westwind Ditching off NLK

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Merged: Pel-Air Westwind Ditching off NLK

Old 22nd Nov 2009, 22:26
  #281 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The local
Posts: 54
Were they carrying the patients husband? If so, this would be a charter operation, not Aerial work.
Cactus Jak is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2009, 22:39
  #282 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,170
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.
601 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2009, 23:00
  #283 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 302
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.
dogcharlietree is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2009, 23:06
  #284 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76

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?
Gnd Power is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2009, 23:19
  #285 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,170
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?
601 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2009, 23:31
  #286 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 16
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.
acementhead is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 01:35
  #287 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Does anyone have the legal definition of a "Remote Island" ?
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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 02:03
  #288 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 492
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.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 02:43
  #289 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Gnd Power


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.
ZEEBEE is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 02:58
  #290 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,898
I do love the difference between the media and PPRuNe!


Hero pilot saves 6 passengers with successful night ditching.


Reckless pilot has a CFIT accident in an unprepared ditching

Hope I never make a mistake and get put through the wringers on here!!
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 03:10
  #291 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 52
Posts: 6,855

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!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 03:10
  #292 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wokingham
Posts: 9

From the current Norfolk Online: (Welcome to Norfolk Online)

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.......
crossingclimb is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 04:10
  #293 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
A side issue

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 .

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. 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.
STOL_king is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 04:14
  #294 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
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.
Dog One is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 06:05
  #295 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: utopia
Posts: 167
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.
Bo777 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 06:11
  #296 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ask my boss!
Age: 45
Posts: 5

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

Any EGPWS on W/W
Any RadALT?
aviexp is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 06:13
  #297 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wokingham
Posts: 9
Fuel required...........


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.
crossingclimb is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 06:22
  #298 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 82
Posts: 1,345
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.
teresa green is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 06:23
  #299 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sydney,NSW,Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 22
Paul is a scary pilot

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?)
Captain Kellogs is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2009, 06:35
  #300 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: utopia
Posts: 167
sorry my bad.
Bo777 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.