Not another Norfolk Island Thread!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not another Norfolk Island Thread!
Hmmmmmm.....
Air ambulance crash pilot suspended despite heroic landing Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
From: The Australian February 24, 2010 12:
THE air safety watchdog has suspended the licence of the pilot hailed as a hero after last year's ditching of an air ambulance off Norfolk Island.
The Australian has learned that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority suspended Dominic James's licence as a result of its probe into the Westwind jet crash in November.
All six occupants of the Pel-Air Westwind jet survived after he and his co-pilot successfully ditched the plane in darkness off the coast of Norfolk Island.
Bad weather had prevented it from landing to refuel during a CareFlight mission to evacuate a sick woman and her husband from Western Samoa.
It ditched as fuel ran low after four landing attempts.
CASA launched an investigation in parallel to the normal accident probe after questions were raised about the amount of fuel the plane was carrying and why it did not have enough to reach another airport.
The watchdog said yesterday the Privacy Act prevented it from commenting on whether an individual's licence had been suspended. But it said it could suspend a licence "in the interests of safety".
The authority said the review of the Pel-Air accident was still in progress and issues included regulatory requirements.
It was also investigating Pel-Air's fuel policies and practices and training.
CASA said the regulations placed responsibility on the operator to ensure appropriate fuel policies to enable a flight to be carried out safely, and on the pilot-in-command to ensure there was enough fuel.
The air ambulance was operating under the aerial work category and Pel-Air indicated after the accident that it permitted planes to operate without enough fuel to reach an alternative place under some weather conditions.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said in its preliminary report that the forecast conditions at the time the crew submitted its flight plan did not require them to carry extra fuel or nominate an alternate airport.
It also revealed Pel-Air had introduced a program to check and revalidate its Westwind pilots on policies and procedures, safety management systems, instrument flight rules and threat and error management.
Captain James said yesterday he could not comment until the ATSB had completed its investigation.
Air ambulance crash pilot suspended despite heroic landing Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
From: The Australian February 24, 2010 12:
THE air safety watchdog has suspended the licence of the pilot hailed as a hero after last year's ditching of an air ambulance off Norfolk Island.
The Australian has learned that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority suspended Dominic James's licence as a result of its probe into the Westwind jet crash in November.
All six occupants of the Pel-Air Westwind jet survived after he and his co-pilot successfully ditched the plane in darkness off the coast of Norfolk Island.
Bad weather had prevented it from landing to refuel during a CareFlight mission to evacuate a sick woman and her husband from Western Samoa.
It ditched as fuel ran low after four landing attempts.
CASA launched an investigation in parallel to the normal accident probe after questions were raised about the amount of fuel the plane was carrying and why it did not have enough to reach another airport.
The watchdog said yesterday the Privacy Act prevented it from commenting on whether an individual's licence had been suspended. But it said it could suspend a licence "in the interests of safety".
The authority said the review of the Pel-Air accident was still in progress and issues included regulatory requirements.
It was also investigating Pel-Air's fuel policies and practices and training.
CASA said the regulations placed responsibility on the operator to ensure appropriate fuel policies to enable a flight to be carried out safely, and on the pilot-in-command to ensure there was enough fuel.
The air ambulance was operating under the aerial work category and Pel-Air indicated after the accident that it permitted planes to operate without enough fuel to reach an alternative place under some weather conditions.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said in its preliminary report that the forecast conditions at the time the crew submitted its flight plan did not require them to carry extra fuel or nominate an alternate airport.
It also revealed Pel-Air had introduced a program to check and revalidate its Westwind pilots on policies and procedures, safety management systems, instrument flight rules and threat and error management.
Captain James said yesterday he could not comment until the ATSB had completed its investigation.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Another thread......No Comment 
Ohhh Ok, just a couple, and this is a rumour only, but having recently spoken to a pilot who did aeromedical flights over these routes some years back, and seems to know a bit about what still goes on in the industry, the comment was passed that the operator may have had some resistance to divert to New Caledonia due to commercial dispute matters and hence it was not in ones scope of options (before the poo hits the fan of course).
So there ya go.....chew that rumour over.
Into the bunker I go!
Ohhh Ok, just a couple, and this is a rumour only, but having recently spoken to a pilot who did aeromedical flights over these routes some years back, and seems to know a bit about what still goes on in the industry, the comment was passed that the operator may have had some resistance to divert to New Caledonia due to commercial dispute matters and hence it was not in ones scope of options (before the poo hits the fan of course).
So there ya go.....chew that rumour over.
Into the bunker I go!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing wrong with discussing it .. sensibly and logicly. .. if you're interested it it. Me, I can't wait for the final report when it comes out, so I can compare with what I feel were the main causes of the whole sorry episode. Dumb luck at the end !!
60 minutes to do story?
A 60 Minutes crew was outside Baxter Road last week. Staff were ordered not to talk to them. Fair enough as the jury is still out.
I wonder if they'll wait for the ATSB report. Probably just gathering background footage.
I wonder if they'll wait for the ATSB report. Probably just gathering background footage.
Moderator
Nothing wrong with discussing it .. sensibly and logicly. .. if you're interested it it. Me, I can't wait for the final report when it comes out, so I can compare with what I feel were the main causes of the whole sorry episode.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story.
The issue with Noumea was RVSM capability. The aircraft that went in was made RVSM capable so it could go to Tontouta. Nothing to do with commercial pressures.
The issue with Noumea was RVSM capability. The aircraft that went in was made RVSM capable so it could go to Tontouta. Nothing to do with commercial pressures.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have really sparked up the awareness by CASA of RVSM capable aircraft, or not. Was doing a flight the other day, and heard Centre having quite a discussion with an aircraft about its flight plan, (Virgin doing an International if I recall correctly,) advising that the aircraft was not listed in the database as one that was approved for RVSM operation. Went on for quite a while.
I don't believe RVSM was or is an issue too much in this case. Not being RVSM approved doesn't mean you can't fly higher than 28K here in Oz for Eg it just means you can't expect to go higher unless the airway is clear of conforming RVSM A/C.
I still believe (& this is just a personal opinion) the end result of this underwater excursion was due commercial pressure but it remains to be seen in what form. Was there time constraints, where there fuel problems IE obtaining more fuel, remember where talking about a Pacific Is. here corruption/cooperation or lack thereof could be rife at some places.
If there where some issues with not using New Cal (the French CASA can be very tough) as an ALT then the flight perhaps should have not taken off until it could be conducted without the need to hold an ALT such as New Cal. Obviously (well to me anyway) it appears to be boiling down to not having full tanks on departure is the basis of this whole mess. the final report will indeed be very interesting reading to some commercial operators for sure.
As said before they all survived, good now lets learn from it, something we do all the time in aviation, learn by our mistakes!
Wmk2
I still believe (& this is just a personal opinion) the end result of this underwater excursion was due commercial pressure but it remains to be seen in what form. Was there time constraints, where there fuel problems IE obtaining more fuel, remember where talking about a Pacific Is. here corruption/cooperation or lack thereof could be rife at some places.
If there where some issues with not using New Cal (the French CASA can be very tough) as an ALT then the flight perhaps should have not taken off until it could be conducted without the need to hold an ALT such as New Cal. Obviously (well to me anyway) it appears to be boiling down to not having full tanks on departure is the basis of this whole mess. the final report will indeed be very interesting reading to some commercial operators for sure.
As said before they all survived, good now lets learn from it, something we do all the time in aviation, learn by our mistakes!
Wmk2
advising that the aircraft was not listed in the database as one that was approved for RVSM operation. Went on for quite a while.
Be surprised if a Virgin Jet was not RVSM approved!
You just file RVSM on the Flightplan. Not sure why ATC would contest that?
You just file RVSM on the Flightplan. Not sure why ATC would contest that?
I believe they have a register of those that are approved and perhaps the Virgin one had not yet been added or not yet approved.
Same applies to ADSB - though that's a bit more obvious - the aircraft doesn't show up as ADSB track when it leaves radar coverage.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: east coast
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bilbert
In reference to the gear being down. This would be normal. With a hydraulic system NOT compromised. The gear should stay up for a significant time even without pressure. This is actually part of a westwinds regular maintenance checks i would think. But once hydraulic lines are cut the gear would most likely start to fall straight away. There would also be an inspection to ensure the gear can fall and lock without pressure. I guess it passed.
In reference to the gear being down. This would be normal. With a hydraulic system NOT compromised. The gear should stay up for a significant time even without pressure. This is actually part of a westwinds regular maintenance checks i would think. But once hydraulic lines are cut the gear would most likely start to fall straight away. There would also be an inspection to ensure the gear can fall and lock without pressure. I guess it passed.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In the middle
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon you are most likely right truth boy re the gear. Once hydraulic pressure is lost something like an uplock spring will lose pressure and release the gear and it will extend. But does the gear in a Westwind fall under under gravity in this scenario or is there some spring or bungy? Besides Im sure they had a look inside the cockpit to see if the gear lever was up or down. At the end of the day as stated earlier all problems started by not having enough gas in the tanks, thats why they ran out (almost).
I operate "negative RVSM" when I can be bothered and subject to ATC. Generally not a problem.
I wonder if Pelair will stand by their man? Time will tell.
I operate "negative RVSM" when I can be bothered and subject to ATC. Generally not a problem.
I wonder if Pelair will stand by their man? Time will tell.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the pilot should have filled out an "Aviation Self Reporting Scheme Report" from the ATSB. That way when they came knocking with their "show cause" (as to why we shouldn't take your licence away), he could have waved his receipt in their faces. In your FACE CASA! (he would say)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: a long way South
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty,
yeah there was a film crew at Baxter Rd last week, not sure how much information they got....but instead it was the same day a Saab took off out of Grafton with the pitot cover left on and had to return to land!!
Heard our usually calm and relaxed FOM was telling everyone heading into Baxter Rd that day to keep hush about the pitot incident and not make any comment....just in case the news get hold of such a juicy piece of meat regarding an RPT outfit named Best In The World.
Now back to the ditching.
yeah there was a film crew at Baxter Rd last week, not sure how much information they got....but instead it was the same day a Saab took off out of Grafton with the pitot cover left on and had to return to land!!
Heard our usually calm and relaxed FOM was telling everyone heading into Baxter Rd that day to keep hush about the pitot incident and not make any comment....just in case the news get hold of such a juicy piece of meat regarding an RPT outfit named Best In The World.
Now back to the ditching.