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

Norfolk ditching- license back?

Old 7th Aug 2010, 23:27
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,504
carry additional fuel and perhaps be overweight and cop the wrath if you get ramped,
Or maybe overload the wing which then structurally fails a year later killing everyone
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2010, 23:33
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 623
Neville, Sorry mate, but you should take a look at the dispensations for weight on international ferry flights in light to medium aircraft. These things are miles over MTOW and its all fuel. Been there done that.

You haven't an argument with this.
PA39 is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2010, 01:13
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 588
carry additional fuel and perhaps be overweight and cop the wrath if you get ramped,
Neville, Sorry mate, but you should take a look at the dispensations for weight on international ferry flights in light to medium aircraft. These things are miles over MTOW and its all fuel. Been there done that.
So PA39, what do you compromise to carry this extra weight?

I'll have to speak to CASA to mandate all MTOWs be increased as it must be perfectly safe to do so from your comments.

If you then arrived at your destination above MLW would you hold before landing? What if weather was approaching?

Its a ridiculous comment to say that you would compromise aircraft performance on a normal flight because the aircraft is marginal on that route for fuel. If you can't carry enough fuel to do it legally then don't do it. If the destination is known to be marginal have alternates available en-route and get up-dates on the weather enroute.

Ferrying is a completely different prospect and only operating crew are subject to the dangers.

How far above maximum weight could you go before all single engine performance is lost and you face ditching on take-off due to a failure?
43Inches is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2010, 03:21
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: .
Posts: 719
From the report at AO-2009-072
The flight crew stated that, on reaching the planned cruising altitude, the headwind gradually increased and, in response, the engine thrust settings were reduced to increase the aircraft’s range.
During the flight, meteorological information was received from Auckland Oceanic2 that indicated the weather at the island was deteriorating. The flight crew reported that they also monitored the weather reports for Norfolk Island during the flight and, at 0904, they requested the 0900 Norfolk Island automatic weather report3.
The crew subsequently received an updated weather report that was issued at 0902. The report indicated that the weather conditions had deteriorated from those forecast at the time of the flight’s departure from Apia.
At 0928, the flight crew contacted the Norfolk Island Unicom4 operator (Norfolk Unicom), advising that they were about 20 minutes from the airport. Norfolk Unicom provided an updated weather report, indicating a deterioration in the conditions to well below the landing minima5. Subsequently, the crew sought regular weather updates from Norfolk Unicom as they descended, and also requested the operator to proceed to each end of the runway to assess the weather conditions in order to supplement the official weather report.deteriorated from those forecast at the time of the flight’s departure from Apia.
At 0904 when the WX was obtained surely an immediate diversion to Noumea or Auckland wouldn't have put the a/c in the drink when it lists their 4th go-around as occuring at 1025 - so nearly an hour and a half and all at low altitude.

The pilot in command moved rearwards from the cockpit into the cabin and ascertained that the main door was not usable. Continuing rearwards to the two emergency exits in the fuselage centre section, the pilot in command opened the port emergency exit, and water immediately flowed in through the door opening. The pilot in command exited the aircraft. The copilot sustained injuries from a reported contact with the control yoke during the aircraft’s second impact with the water. The copilot was not aware of the pilot in command leaving the cockpit, and may have lost consciousness for a short period of time. The copilot experienced difficulties when attempting to find an exit route from the aircraft by the main door. The copilot then swam rearward along the fuselage, located an emergency exit door by touch, and exited the aircraft.
puff is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2010, 03:41
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 53
Posts: 2,583
From the time line in the preliminary report it would appear that the PIC was in complete violation of CAR 224 par 2 & 2A involving the responsibilities of the PIC. I find it very difficult to see how he could defend himself in a court if he chose to take legal recourse against CASA in connection to his licence suspension.
404 Titan is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2010, 04:41
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,154
Once it was established that an alternate (excluding WX of course) was in fact not required for AWK operations, the question of when the PIC became aware of Norfolk deterioating to below the Alt Minima really is what all this is about.

If he did recieve the information with time to divert, then why didn't he?
KRUSTY 34 is online now  
Old 8th Aug 2010, 05:50
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 57
Posts: 864
Based on what I have read in the various threads dealing with the matter and in the preliminary report, it was a charter flight - Pelair was not the air ambulance operator, careflight was. Pelair was just a chartered aircraft supplier.
So it would seem that AWK provisions did not apply.......
Jamair is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2010, 06:39
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 623
43 Inches......Nothing is compromised. It is not a permanent increase, but a dispensation for the ferry. These ferry aircraft are seriously over MTOW. Yes occassionaly there is a requirement to return to the point of departure, and yes they are landed grossly over MLW. However like all good pilots, the landing is endorsed on the M/R for perusal by the LAME.

"How far above maximum weight could you go before all single engine performance is lost and you face ditching on take-off due to a failure".............. Its line ball even below MTOW in most light twins!!

"I'll have to speak to CASA "..... Please do, I'm sure you would have a direct line by now!!

Last edited by PA39; 8th Aug 2010 at 06:58.
PA39 is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2010, 10:57
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 588
43 Inches......Nothing is compromised.
So you are saying that you overload an aircraft by 30% (light twins usually get around this as a dispensation for ferry) and it will not negatively affect its performance?

"How far above maximum weight could you go before all single engine performance is lost and you face ditching on take-off due to a failure".............. Its line ball even below MTOW in most light twins!!
You are quoting on a thread based on a transport certified jet. And yes it is line ball in a light twin at max, but at 30% over max weight your fate is sealed. At least at normal weights you have a chance.

Imagine if this scenario was different and he had overloaded the aircraft had a failure on take-off at V1 and went through the fence on the runway trying to continue?

How much fuel is going to be worthwhile carrying? 100kg over is going to buy no useful time in this situation the result would have been the same.
43Inches is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2010, 00:54
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,805
A bit of thread drift here, but as regards ferrying: The so-called 'wet footprint' in a single is the entire time it is beyond gliding distance to land. The wet footprint of a piston twin will be AS A MINIMUM the entire time it is overweight. Which, from the west coast of the USA to Hawaii would be about half or more of the entire leg. With twice as many engines to fail but being only exposed to the possibility of a ditching for half the distance (until the excess weight is burned off), my attitude towards it was that the odds of going for a swim were about the same ferrying an overwight twin as a single.
Even the turboprops when overweight will have a wet footprint, but not nearly as long for the engine failure case. The depressurization case is usually more of a worry.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2010, 01:01
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,328
Mach

Not as bad as you might think for a twin. Many a story of twin (or four engined) bombers getting home in ground effect during the war.
waren9 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2010, 02:59
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,805
I spent a bit of time in the ferry game and worked sometimes with a guy who has been in the water 4 times. Twice in singles and twice in twins. The twins were both engine failures. One was a Chieftain and the other a BN2. He told me that he was able to fly the Chieftain in ground effect but the remaining engine was running so hot that he was afraid it would seize. So he elected to put it down while he still had enough control to select the wave of choice. I don't know why the Islander wouldn't fly, but guess it was also a weight issue and I don't suppose ground effect would do much for one of those anyway. From memory, the singles ran out of fuel. Back in the days before GPS when they had no real idea of the winds, running out of juice was just another part of the risk.
Back on thread - our man did have GPS, so he knew perfectly well where he was and presumably how much fuel he had left for a diversion. What he seemed to fail to compute, was the need for a diversion.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2010, 04:16
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ground as little as possible
Posts: 12
PA39, you haven't an argument at all for overloading in this type of operation. Ferry and Air Work.....very different kettles of fish. If one needs to do this as standard operation, the aircraft is not suited to the task.

Whilst structurally one shouldn't compromise the wing integrity by loading extra fuel, many other factors come into play.

Neville, additional fuel (wing supported) should actually decrease spar loads, ever asked the question as to why tip tanks?

That said, rules and limitations are just that. Dispensations (as you state PA39), are just that, TEMPORARY!!
sparcap is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2010, 13:30
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the 15th floor
Age: 50
Posts: 362
Fuel planning is risk management. It revolves around probability and likelihood of certain events occurring e.g. fog etc.

This is not a comment on the investigation but on those that think that you can always guarantee that you will have enough fuel...
kellykelpie is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2010, 13:36
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,401
there would be a LOT of A/C taking off over weight due all sorts of reasons.
OK Wally... wiith the greatest respect to you and your ilk, can you give us some legitimate reasons for ignoring the POH/MOM wrt MTOW?

The ferry exemptions as described above being (obviously) out of the question... for a CHTR or AWK op... is there ANY legit excuse for dep over MTOW??? ANY excuse?
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2010, 14:15
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
He may get his licence back, but it does not mean he will be able to find a decent job. It would be a brave company that invited that sort of (negative) publicity
illusion is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2010, 06:23
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 265
Off topic: If such a thing does not already exist, can't some of the more advanced airliners determine their own weight based on pressure on the landing gear or something to that effect?
SgtBundy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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