Norfold Island - Island reserve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: darwin australia
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I operated ozjet 73's for 2.5 yrs,(& as a result am well acqainted with NLK ops) it is my understanding we (Hi Cap/RPT) were bound by CAO82.0 para.(2.3) & 2.4 (Zanzibar nailed it in post #7)to carry an alternate on ALL flts,(If "petroleum challenged" then PNR back to wherever prior to committing.) regardless of actual &/or forecast wx.Given NLK's "notoriety" re:WX,CAO #1 (ie,use common sense) would dictate always "keeping the back door open" when planning to "The ROCK".In the wake of the "slat" incident,it was suggested we "fuel plan" to NOU,as Altn.with the gear stuck down to allow worst case scenario,I think thats where the "depress.+ eng. out" comes into the new rule change.
mauswara,
Bit of a contradiction there. Unless fuel challenged, you'd always be taking extra fuel for tankering purposes; altn not a problem. If fuel-challenged, it doesn't make sense to be required to carry an alternate only until PNR. Either you have to or you don't. If 2.3 didn't have any special CASA requirements eg exempting you from carrying an alternate, then you'd have to. That is the crux of this (soon to be old) argument. What'd your CASA-approved ops manual say on NLK fuel policy?
it is my understanding we (Hi Cap/RPT) were bound by CAO82.0 para.(2.3) & 2.4 (Zanzibar nailed it in post #7)to carry an alternate on ALL flts,(If "petroleum challenged" then PNR back to wherever prior to committing.)
mauswara
Only because CASA made your company include it as a requirement in their Ops manual. Don’t think for a moment your company did it through the kindness of their heart. There was no legal requirement for Ozjet to carry an alternate for Norfolk until CASA directed them to comply with 2.3 and 2.4 and have it included in their Ops manual. This would be the case also for Qlink operations to Lord Howe as I believe they carry fuel back to Coffs Harbour.
it is my understanding we (Hi Cap/RPT) were bound by CAO82.0 para.(2.3) & 2.4 (Zanzibar nailed it in post #7)to carry an alternate on ALL flts
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules - For the guidance of wise men ?, etc.
Despite an inbuilt, natural reluctance, here we are on Prune. Whoo da thunk it !!.
Anyway – I am over the pointless bleating over what CASA should, or should not have approved. IMHO:-
There must be a way of defeating the great Australian whining, slavish, pedantic reliance on 'legislation" as the only cure all for industry ills. (Referring particularly to this thread) Legal does not always make it safe (except for the judge), safe does not always mean legal. Lawyers nearly always get paid, no matter what the outcome.
This is not rocket science. Prior to a 3000 nm flight over water, surely, despite whatever the CAO, COM, FCOM or, your daily horoscope says, you would need to be assured that the '101' (basic flight training) rules were followed.
101, Is the back door open?. Can I get to "Kickatinalong" on one donk?. What if fuel for cruise at Fl 380 is adequate, can I do it at Fl 140?. Where is the freezing level?. How much ice will I have to carry?. What about pressurisation failure and oxygen endurance?. How long will one generator keep beating the ice?. What is the certificated oil endurance ?. What level of icing is the airframe certified for?. What is the maximum certified time for this engine at MCP?
All valid questions for certification and, a PIC should be able to answer, prior to departure.
102, Back door 'not so' open – re think – re plan – re evaluate - adjust payload, fuel uplift or route to ensure that the payload can be safely delivered. Not quasi legally, but safely.
103, Weather and NOTAM evaluated, what impact will this information have on the flight and, the ability to finalize the flight in a safe, managed and even a legal manner.
104, Do I really care about doing the job properly as a PIC or; am I a slave to whatever company policy (culture) is in vogue at the present time.
105, What can I monitor to ensure that (i) nothing gets hit, (ii) nothing get broken (ii) that I get to the pub and turn a rough day into a great story; not to bloody rags or an unscheduled dip in the big pond.
All valid. All CASA can do is satisfy their current policy and enforce compliance. The more prescriptive the rules the higher the criminal charge count. They can, they do and they have translated a COM breach into a criminal charge. Why? that is their problem.
As a PIC you need to be able, despite the rhetoric and rules to be able to safely deliver a payload to it's destination. To do this, if you have no other rules to follow, you are obliged to follow the rules of 'common sense'. This is really what pilots get paid for.
Remember 101 – 105, I was asked these questions more years ago than I care to remember prior to departing on a first pre CPL navigation flight.
Tailwinds_Rose.
Anyway – I am over the pointless bleating over what CASA should, or should not have approved. IMHO:-
There must be a way of defeating the great Australian whining, slavish, pedantic reliance on 'legislation" as the only cure all for industry ills. (Referring particularly to this thread) Legal does not always make it safe (except for the judge), safe does not always mean legal. Lawyers nearly always get paid, no matter what the outcome.
This is not rocket science. Prior to a 3000 nm flight over water, surely, despite whatever the CAO, COM, FCOM or, your daily horoscope says, you would need to be assured that the '101' (basic flight training) rules were followed.
101, Is the back door open?. Can I get to "Kickatinalong" on one donk?. What if fuel for cruise at Fl 380 is adequate, can I do it at Fl 140?. Where is the freezing level?. How much ice will I have to carry?. What about pressurisation failure and oxygen endurance?. How long will one generator keep beating the ice?. What is the certificated oil endurance ?. What level of icing is the airframe certified for?. What is the maximum certified time for this engine at MCP?
All valid questions for certification and, a PIC should be able to answer, prior to departure.
102, Back door 'not so' open – re think – re plan – re evaluate - adjust payload, fuel uplift or route to ensure that the payload can be safely delivered. Not quasi legally, but safely.
103, Weather and NOTAM evaluated, what impact will this information have on the flight and, the ability to finalize the flight in a safe, managed and even a legal manner.
104, Do I really care about doing the job properly as a PIC or; am I a slave to whatever company policy (culture) is in vogue at the present time.
105, What can I monitor to ensure that (i) nothing gets hit, (ii) nothing get broken (ii) that I get to the pub and turn a rough day into a great story; not to bloody rags or an unscheduled dip in the big pond.
All valid. All CASA can do is satisfy their current policy and enforce compliance. The more prescriptive the rules the higher the criminal charge count. They can, they do and they have translated a COM breach into a criminal charge. Why? that is their problem.
As a PIC you need to be able, despite the rhetoric and rules to be able to safely deliver a payload to it's destination. To do this, if you have no other rules to follow, you are obliged to follow the rules of 'common sense'. This is really what pilots get paid for.
Remember 101 – 105, I was asked these questions more years ago than I care to remember prior to departing on a first pre CPL navigation flight.
Tailwinds_Rose.
Rose_Thorns
Your post is all very good in theory but the reality is that operators have been operating aircraft out to these remote islands for years legally without carrying an alternate. It would be a very brave PIC indeed who insisted on carrying mainland fuel or worse still refusing to operate a flight based on the fact he would like to carry an alternate but there was no legal or operational reason for doing so. When CAO 82.0 Subsection 3A1 is changed a lot of operators will have to acquire new aircraft to complete the tasks as the old ones simply won’t be able to carry the new fuel requirement and carry the payload. I can just see some of the replies to CASA from companies affected by this NPRM.
Your post is all very good in theory but the reality is that operators have been operating aircraft out to these remote islands for years legally without carrying an alternate. It would be a very brave PIC indeed who insisted on carrying mainland fuel or worse still refusing to operate a flight based on the fact he would like to carry an alternate but there was no legal or operational reason for doing so. When CAO 82.0 Subsection 3A1 is changed a lot of operators will have to acquire new aircraft to complete the tasks as the old ones simply won’t be able to carry the new fuel requirement and carry the payload. I can just see some of the replies to CASA from companies affected by this NPRM.
404 Titan, agreed in principle, however I have refused a flight because I thought a mainland alternate would be prudent even though it wasn't legally required by our ops manual. No one has questioned the decision--yet, it was fairly recent. I think if you are going to pull the PiC card, you just need to be very clear on what you are doing and why you are doing it. That way you can confidently back up your decision to management if required.
Please go back to my earlier post. The original OzJet Ops Manual fuel policy required an alternate for NLK because it quite clearly was one of the remote islands referred to in regulations. Albeit, alternate fuel was not planned with the gear stuck down, or with a slat wrapped around the wing, as no regulation at the time required such contingencies to be considered. 'Build-up' fuel was also shown on the CFP to cover any shortfall for the depressurized case. If regulation is now proposing that we cover gear stuck down, methinks a) it is a kneejerk and b) we will all have to go by boat because not too many aircraft of suitable size will be able to comply.
The OzJet operation was RPT, whereas the Pelair operation was not - hence they did not carry an alternate. Whether they should have has been adequately discussed in its own thread.
The OzJet operation was RPT, whereas the Pelair operation was not - hence they did not carry an alternate. Whether they should have has been adequately discussed in its own thread.
Mach E Avelli
The original Ozjet ops manual required alternate fuel for NLK because CASA would have directed them to have it in there not because the regulation required it. With what appears from your comments regarding the management there do you honestly think they would have volunteered to have it included unless they were pushed by CASA?
The original Ozjet ops manual required alternate fuel for NLK because CASA would have directed them to have it in there not because the regulation required it. With what appears from your comments regarding the management there do you honestly think they would have volunteered to have it included unless they were pushed by CASA?
Mach,
To put your mind at ease, that is not the proposal. It is proposed that fuel for Depress with one engine be considered.
If regulation is now proposing that we cover gear stuck down, methinks a) it is a kneejerk and b) we will all have to go by boat because not too many aircraft of suitable size will be able to comply.
Of course the fuel policy was only put in there because it had to be in order to get an international AOC. Operators rarely voluntarily 'gold-plate' their activities if it will impact on payload or put them at a disadvantage against their competitors.
Point taken Bloggsy - I was being a bit tongue in cheek. In fact the one-engine inop depressurized fuel requirement could actually be LESS than the all engines depressurized case - would depend on aircraft type.
Point taken Bloggsy - I was being a bit tongue in cheek. In fact the one-engine inop depressurized fuel requirement could actually be LESS than the all engines depressurized case - would depend on aircraft type.
