Final flight of VH-NGA
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of the difference between Airwork (Air Ambulance) and Charter....
If the AoC holder (in this case Pelair) was contracted by the client (the insurance provider) to provide an air-ambulance service, for which it subsequently hired an aeromedical crew (Careflight) to perform, then it will be air work.
If an aedromedical service provider (in this case Careflight) was contracted by the client to provide an aeromedical evacuation, to which end the aeromedical service provider chartered an aircraft and crew from an AoC holder (in this case from Pelair), then it is a charter.
Will have to wait to see the investigation and the operational documentation to see which case applied.
Does anyone know if the CVR and/or FDR have been recovered?
If the AoC holder (in this case Pelair) was contracted by the client (the insurance provider) to provide an air-ambulance service, for which it subsequently hired an aeromedical crew (Careflight) to perform, then it will be air work.
If an aedromedical service provider (in this case Careflight) was contracted by the client to provide an aeromedical evacuation, to which end the aeromedical service provider chartered an aircraft and crew from an AoC holder (in this case from Pelair), then it is a charter.
Will have to wait to see the investigation and the operational documentation to see which case applied.
Does anyone know if the CVR and/or FDR have been recovered?
Gary: The pilot was the first to exit the plane. As far as I'm aware he didn't assist anybody
Seems to me that rather than deserting everyone, the pilot did the best he could to get exits open to facilitate everyone's escape.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: x
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 60 Minutes story was a disgraceful piece of sensationalist journalism designed to generate the most ratings from a fearful general populace.
The frequent use of dramatic words such as 'terror', the Oscar worthy dramatisation, complete with perspiration soaked pilot and a ditching animation showing the gear in the down position, all demosntrate that the producer's intent of the story had little to do with the truth but rather generating the most ratings.
I understand the three people who were on board that night each were paid large sums of money to appear. I thought cheque book journalism had to be declared...?
The whinging Pommie patient and her husband, 'the victims', after receiving dodgy medical treatment in Samoa, did what most would do, and called 'the ambulance' to take them to a proper hospital. The 'ambulance' had an accident on the way. Even though all got out and lived to collect their $20K plus cheques each for their 60 Minutes stories, the 'ambulance driver' became the subject of everyone's scorn.
Do you think the flight crew, doctor and nurse really wanted to be up there that night medivacing a patient suffereing 'elective surgery' complications? No, but they did, because it was their job. Flying an air ambulance.
The final transcript of the 60 Minutes chat room may be an indication of the true intent of the Pommie 'victims';
giantbird asks: I cannot imagine how you must feel almost being killed. What justice are you looking for.
Gary: That is something we are taking advice upon and I can't really comment at this stage. I hope you will understand.
Interviewer: I am sorry we are out of time, do you have anything else you would like to share before we finish tonight?
Sue for as much as they can get maybe? First establish loss, identify the perpetrator, build up as much material for the discovery, then file your case.
Gives a new definition of 'Ambulance Chasers'...
I wonder if there will be a person in the future, who is on a remote island somewhere and is really hurt and will die unless they are medivac'ed out immediately and he or she finds out that as a result of the witch hunt directed at the pilot of NGA, the aeromedical operator and/or its pilots, following OP orders to the T, will somehow elect not to fly due to the conditions prevalent on that day...and that person dies.
What has 60 Minutes done..?
The frequent use of dramatic words such as 'terror', the Oscar worthy dramatisation, complete with perspiration soaked pilot and a ditching animation showing the gear in the down position, all demosntrate that the producer's intent of the story had little to do with the truth but rather generating the most ratings.
I understand the three people who were on board that night each were paid large sums of money to appear. I thought cheque book journalism had to be declared...?
The whinging Pommie patient and her husband, 'the victims', after receiving dodgy medical treatment in Samoa, did what most would do, and called 'the ambulance' to take them to a proper hospital. The 'ambulance' had an accident on the way. Even though all got out and lived to collect their $20K plus cheques each for their 60 Minutes stories, the 'ambulance driver' became the subject of everyone's scorn.
Do you think the flight crew, doctor and nurse really wanted to be up there that night medivacing a patient suffereing 'elective surgery' complications? No, but they did, because it was their job. Flying an air ambulance.
The final transcript of the 60 Minutes chat room may be an indication of the true intent of the Pommie 'victims';
giantbird asks: I cannot imagine how you must feel almost being killed. What justice are you looking for.
Gary: That is something we are taking advice upon and I can't really comment at this stage. I hope you will understand.
Interviewer: I am sorry we are out of time, do you have anything else you would like to share before we finish tonight?
Sue for as much as they can get maybe? First establish loss, identify the perpetrator, build up as much material for the discovery, then file your case.
Gives a new definition of 'Ambulance Chasers'...
I wonder if there will be a person in the future, who is on a remote island somewhere and is really hurt and will die unless they are medivac'ed out immediately and he or she finds out that as a result of the witch hunt directed at the pilot of NGA, the aeromedical operator and/or its pilots, following OP orders to the T, will somehow elect not to fly due to the conditions prevalent on that day...and that person dies.
What has 60 Minutes done..?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KLN94
If they didn't want to be there doing their 'job' then they are in the wrong job and need to change.
Do you think the flight crew, doctor and nurse really wanted to be up there that night medivacing a patient suffereing 'elective surgery' complications? No, but they did, because it was their job. Flying an air ambulance.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: x
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant up there, in questionable weather, at night, over water, rather than in better conditions.
And yes, they were up there that night, precisley because it was their job.
Thankfully there are people like that, who desire to do such things, for the benefit of others. Like other emergency services personell; ambulance, fire, police etc.
I think many people have been missing the point over this incident.
And yes, they were up there that night, precisley because it was their job.
Thankfully there are people like that, who desire to do such things, for the benefit of others. Like other emergency services personell; ambulance, fire, police etc.
I think many people have been missing the point over this incident.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: bum**** alabama
Age: 23
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The basic points are these:
A fuel policy dictates minimum fuel load, not the fuel load that is necessarily carried, that's up to the PIC.
Any pilot that proceeds to a single runway airport in the pacific in the middle of the night,regardless of weather, without the fuel to go elsewhere, is an idiot.
A fuel policy dictates minimum fuel load, not the fuel load that is necessarily carried, that's up to the PIC.
Any pilot that proceeds to a single runway airport in the pacific in the middle of the night,regardless of weather, without the fuel to go elsewhere, is an idiot.
Last edited by smoka21; 8th Mar 2010 at 20:46.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
KLN94
I think you are missing the point. The idea of having a professional crew in a Jet to retrieve you, be it charter or air work is that they operate in a safe and professional manner. Had they done this, a perfectly servicable aircraft would not be an artificial reef by now.
When the penny started to drop they were not going to have a flight according to plan, they still had options in my opinion and somebody (ATSB or CASA take note if you read this) should investigate why and what pressure was there not to use a runway at the end of an ILS over their right shoulder. Unless someone can show me why they would not have made that runway.
I think you are missing the point. The idea of having a professional crew in a Jet to retrieve you, be it charter or air work is that they operate in a safe and professional manner. Had they done this, a perfectly servicable aircraft would not be an artificial reef by now.
When the penny started to drop they were not going to have a flight according to plan, they still had options in my opinion and somebody (ATSB or CASA take note if you read this) should investigate why and what pressure was there not to use a runway at the end of an ILS over their right shoulder. Unless someone can show me why they would not have made that runway.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KLN94
Isn't the point that a flight overwater to a remote destination was planned without an alternative.
"The point" I would of thought was fairly straightforward, the why is the issue.
The rest of your post is rubbish.
Unfortuanetly an accident happened, fortuanetly no lives were lost. The end result of the investigation should be such that lessons are learned and future operations of this type will be planned and operated in a safe manner.
Isn't the point that a flight overwater to a remote destination was planned without an alternative.
"The point" I would of thought was fairly straightforward, the why is the issue.
The rest of your post is rubbish.
Unfortuanetly an accident happened, fortuanetly no lives were lost. The end result of the investigation should be such that lessons are learned and future operations of this type will be planned and operated in a safe manner.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'ambulance' had an accident on the way. Even though all got out and lived to collect their $20K plus cheques each for their 60 Minutes stories, the 'ambulance driver' became the subject of everyone's scorn.
If I were given the option of staying in a remote location like Samoa or being transfered by this organisation and in particular that captain, based on the info to date (yes I know the final report isn't out) I would be seriously considering even on a cavok day taking my chances in Samoa. The 60 mins episode may have been sensational but tell me where the innacuracies are?
Screw the PC amongst us, it was a giant size screw up by the crew and they almost killed six people.
Screw the PC amongst us, it was a giant size screw up by the crew and they almost killed six people.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any pilot that proceeds to a single runway airport in the pacific in the middle of the night,regardless of weather, without the fuel to go elsewhere, is an idiot.
How any pilot could explain why you would fly a perfectly servicable aircraft into the ocean would have to be good.
Each one of the pax and crew should buy a lottery ticket. damm lucky to be alive. not even a mayday call -
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After finally getting around to watching the program, I have to add my comments. The U/C is down and does seem to be in the lock position as the leg is supporting the a/c wing, both sides. To support this conclusion the drag brace looks to over centered (Paused the screen to have a good look) Also the gear door is also in the "down and locked" position.
I noticed that the pax had no contact from PelAir since the incident???? I do hope they have a good lawyer!!!
Why did they not interview the "real owner" PelAir, as we all know is LHK!!!
I noticed that the pax had no contact from PelAir since the incident???? I do hope they have a good lawyer!!!
Why did they not interview the "real owner" PelAir, as we all know is LHK!!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whinging Pommie patient and her husband, 'the victims', after receiving dodgy medical treatment in Samoa, did what most would do, and called 'the ambulance' to take them to a proper hospital. The 'ambulance' had an accident on the way. Even though all got out and lived to collect their $20K plus cheques each for their 60 Minutes stories, the 'ambulance driver' became the subject of everyone's scorn.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The whinging Pommie patient and her husband,
What we are talking about is the pilot in commands responsibilities and these are clearly set out in the CAR's:
224 Pilot in command
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as
pilot in command.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict
liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:
(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the
aircraft; and
(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time;
and
(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and
(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the
aircraft.
(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility
under paragraph (2) (a) in accordance with:
(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the
start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are
made available, or issued, under the Act or these
regulations; and
(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the
operator of the aircraft.
(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the
disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and
for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as
pilot in command.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict
liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:
(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the
aircraft; and
(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time;
and
(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and
(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the
aircraft.
(2A) A pilot in command must discharge his or her responsibility
under paragraph (2) (a) in accordance with:
(a) any information, instructions or directions, relating to the
start, continuation, diversion or end of a flight, that are
made available, or issued, under the Act or these
regulations; and
(b) if applicable, the operations manual provided by the
operator of the aircraft.
(3) The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the
disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and
for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.
233 Responsibility of pilot in command before flight
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a
flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such
action as is necessary to ensure, that:
(a) the instruments and equipment required for the particular
type of operation to be undertaken are installed in the
aircraft and are functioning properly;
(b) the gross weight of the aircraft does not exceed the
limitations fixed by or under regulation 235 and is such
that flight performance in accordance with the standards
specified by CASA for the type of operation to be
undertaken is possible under the prevailing conditions; and
(c) any directions of CASA with respect to the loading of the
aircraft given under regulation 235 have been complied
with;
(d) the fuel supplies are sufficient for the particular flight;
(e) the required operating and other crew members are on
board and in a fit state to perform their duties;
(f) the air traffic control instructions have been complied
with;
(g) the aircraft is safe for flight in all respects; and
(h) the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and
other aeronautical information and instructions, published
in AIP or by a person approved in writing, that are
applicable:
(i) to the route to be flown; and
(ii) to any alternative route that may be flown on that
flight; are carried in the aircraft and are readily accessible to the
flight crew.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a
flight if he or she has not received evidence, and taken such
action as is necessary to ensure, that:
(a) the instruments and equipment required for the particular
type of operation to be undertaken are installed in the
aircraft and are functioning properly;
(b) the gross weight of the aircraft does not exceed the
limitations fixed by or under regulation 235 and is such
that flight performance in accordance with the standards
specified by CASA for the type of operation to be
undertaken is possible under the prevailing conditions; and
(c) any directions of CASA with respect to the loading of the
aircraft given under regulation 235 have been complied
with;
(d) the fuel supplies are sufficient for the particular flight;
(e) the required operating and other crew members are on
board and in a fit state to perform their duties;
(f) the air traffic control instructions have been complied
with;
(g) the aircraft is safe for flight in all respects; and
(h) the latest editions of the aeronautical maps, charts and
other aeronautical information and instructions, published
in AIP or by a person approved in writing, that are
applicable:
(i) to the route to be flown; and
(ii) to any alternative route that may be flown on that
flight; are carried in the aircraft and are readily accessible to the
flight crew.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to CP and PNR calcs ? Sh**t wouldn't you call up for an ACTUAL on the remote island, long before you reached that stage? i can tell you one thing the PIC and FO showed a remarkably disgusting display of planning/airmanship and duty of care. Neither would last five minutes on my team. Running out of fuel is an UNFORGIVEABLE sin in any aircraft let alone Island hopping to remotes. As far as the poor "pommy whinger", christ have a brain, these people placed their lives in the hands of incompetent idiots. Running out of fuel at night over water in extremely poor weather.......come on. Last but by no means least, there were 2 pilots.....one should have been the very last person out after ensuring all pax were safe. No argument. 
I wonder if there will be a person in the future, who is on a remote island somewhere and is really hurt and will die unless they are medivac'ed out immediately and he or she finds out that as a result of the witch hunt directed at the pilot of NGA, the aeromedical operator and/or its pilots, following OP orders to the T, will somehow elect not to fly due to the conditions prevalent on that day...and that person dies.
Going via Norfolk was NOT the only way this flight could have proceeded. I think to insult the unwilling participants of this 'incident' is a real low blow KLN94. In my opinion I believe they seemed to be quite level headed 'normal' people, not after anything more than most of us would be feeling if it was us onboard.
If you went to a doctor and the operation was botched would you not be after answers, want to stop it from happening to someone else, and want compensation? Do you believe all the people fighting for justice in QLD from Dr Patel are all 'Ambulance chasers' as well ?
Surely KLN94 your post has to be a windup.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said "puff" So true there is NOTHING that would make us (RFDS) go outside the rules of common sense to save someone. A few of us 'lifers' (older guys) have experienced the sadness that someone didn't make it probably because we couldn't do the task due Wx for Eg. The chopper boys do an amazing job but even they stay on the grnd when it's really bad. We provide a service & a damn good one at that but it's not a 'death defying' service.
KLN I think yr fellow pears here have said enough re yr post. I won't add to it much other than to say we are all entitled to an opinion here even if you are somewhat harsh. The PIC was ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING that went on with this flight, the buck has to stop somewhere!.
Nothing stops a pilot from making decisions different to a Co's SOP's if he deems it necessary for the safe conduct of a flight once it's getting ugly. SOP's are great & needed but sheeeez they are a guide in some ways but they don't mean you leave yr brains at home!
Okay as has been mentioned flying out to an Is with only a single rwy is asking for trouble without an ALT. The WX aspect in this story is just one part of the possibilities that could go wrong on such a mission. RWY lighting could fail, disabled A/C on that single RWY making the AD U/S for Christ knows how long so having dodgy WX is only part of the overall risks. In this case the WX caught them out that's the crux of this whole thread what about next time? It doesn't end there.
There's a lot still unanswered here but what is fairly obvious to date is not enough fuel for contingencies was carried for whatever reason. Some poor decision making en-route re diverting was made or not made depending on how you look at it.
As has been said before what powerful force/s found this qualified pilot without options at the end of a flight that he thought would be okay from the outset? That's what I want to know. Don't forget this guy had been flying for 1000's of hrs prior to this event, most of us have right here so again simply how did he end up nearly dead along with 5 others?
More to come am sure.
Wmk2
KLN I think yr fellow pears here have said enough re yr post. I won't add to it much other than to say we are all entitled to an opinion here even if you are somewhat harsh. The PIC was ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING that went on with this flight, the buck has to stop somewhere!.
Nothing stops a pilot from making decisions different to a Co's SOP's if he deems it necessary for the safe conduct of a flight once it's getting ugly. SOP's are great & needed but sheeeez they are a guide in some ways but they don't mean you leave yr brains at home!
Okay as has been mentioned flying out to an Is with only a single rwy is asking for trouble without an ALT. The WX aspect in this story is just one part of the possibilities that could go wrong on such a mission. RWY lighting could fail, disabled A/C on that single RWY making the AD U/S for Christ knows how long so having dodgy WX is only part of the overall risks. In this case the WX caught them out that's the crux of this whole thread what about next time? It doesn't end there.
There's a lot still unanswered here but what is fairly obvious to date is not enough fuel for contingencies was carried for whatever reason. Some poor decision making en-route re diverting was made or not made depending on how you look at it.
As has been said before what powerful force/s found this qualified pilot without options at the end of a flight that he thought would be okay from the outset? That's what I want to know. Don't forget this guy had been flying for 1000's of hrs prior to this event, most of us have right here so again simply how did he end up nearly dead along with 5 others?
More to come am sure.
Wmk2
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: east coast
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been having more of a think about the lowered gear and although im a bit rusty im sure i still remember how it operates.
The gear can stay in the retracted position for a given amount of time even with no Hyd pressure to hold it up. Basically the gear control valve in the nose that is directly attached to the gear handle effectively locks the fluid in the lines holding the gear. If you selected gear down with no pressure the gear would fall and in most cases would overcentre and lock within seconds.This happens by allowing the fluid to move through the gear control valve to the extend ports. The retract ports would go to return.
Now in this case since the fusulage of the aircraft was ripped off taking the gear control valve with it. I think its safe to say that both the extend and retract lines were vented to the pacific. This would allow the gear to fall. Now this does not tell us if the gear was up or down at impact. This will come out in time. But just because they are down and locked in the video does not mean they were at impact. With the aircraft in this condition the gear would have fallen no matter what position the gear handle was in. Period.
The gear can stay in the retracted position for a given amount of time even with no Hyd pressure to hold it up. Basically the gear control valve in the nose that is directly attached to the gear handle effectively locks the fluid in the lines holding the gear. If you selected gear down with no pressure the gear would fall and in most cases would overcentre and lock within seconds.This happens by allowing the fluid to move through the gear control valve to the extend ports. The retract ports would go to return.
Now in this case since the fusulage of the aircraft was ripped off taking the gear control valve with it. I think its safe to say that both the extend and retract lines were vented to the pacific. This would allow the gear to fall. Now this does not tell us if the gear was up or down at impact. This will come out in time. But just because they are down and locked in the video does not mean they were at impact. With the aircraft in this condition the gear would have fallen no matter what position the gear handle was in. Period.