Merged: Pel-Air Westwind Ditching off NLK
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: no where
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gadrivr and lester
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, I've obviously missed how you and others posting second hand info on a website such as this helps the crew
No wonder Pprune descends into bun fights. Sorry Mods.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are like a bunch of religious zealots purporting to KNOW
Interesting bit RECOMMENDATION : R20000040
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.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
Don't know why they ditched! Sounds like not enough fuel up lifted to me!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for everyone to take a bit of 'time out' here I think!
GADRIVR,
As BombsGone said at post #357:
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:
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? 
Re-read what Bryan said WRT Australian Regulations as follows:
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.
As BombsGone said at post #357:
I understand your frustration with the tone and content of some of the posts...
You said:
Brian....you just don't get it do you?
I repeat....idiot!
I repeat....idiot!
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chainsaw, I believe GADRIVR's frustration with Brian was caused by his response to my statement that;
to which Brian responded;
So let me just take the first line in Brian's original assertion that I quoted earlier where Brian says;
Lets 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.....
You guys are like a bunch of religious zealots purporting to KNOW
Bollocks. Please PM a reference to where anyone has.
2. No mayday or other communication was given regarding a possible ditching ergo ditching was unintentional ergo CFIT
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.....
Last edited by boeingbender; 24th Nov 2009 at 12:31. Reason: Clarity
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we all give this a rest now?
Oh dear.............
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?
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!
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?
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.
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?
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?
Long bow I'm afraid!
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?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The passing bay
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by KABOY; 24th Nov 2009 at 09:43.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....