Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
The one mystery that has always intrigued me is that the identity of the co-pilot has, so far as I am aware, never been revealed.
We all know why it was politically important for the original report to point at anything other than systemic issues in the operator, the regulator or the various ANSPs involved in the provision of flight services relating to flights into YNFI (noting the "Y" in YNFI). But what was the imperative for confining the regulatory rogering to Dominic James alone, rather than him and the co-pilot?
Given the fundamental mistakes that Dominic James is supposed to have made, shouldn't the co-pilot have been tapping him on the shoulder and giving him the: "Captain, you must listen to me" speech, with a serious face on? No evident political risk in the co-pilot getting a bit of a regulatory touch up as well.
Anyone able to give any hints about the family and romantic connections of the co-pilot?
We all know why it was politically important for the original report to point at anything other than systemic issues in the operator, the regulator or the various ANSPs involved in the provision of flight services relating to flights into YNFI (noting the "Y" in YNFI). But what was the imperative for confining the regulatory rogering to Dominic James alone, rather than him and the co-pilot?
Given the fundamental mistakes that Dominic James is supposed to have made, shouldn't the co-pilot have been tapping him on the shoulder and giving him the: "Captain, you must listen to me" speech, with a serious face on? No evident political risk in the co-pilot getting a bit of a regulatory touch up as well.
Anyone able to give any hints about the family and romantic connections of the co-pilot?
LB, asked that question before and got the brushoff. That suggests to me, along with the crucifixion of DJ and the point blank refusal to recover the recorders, that nothing is Kosher with the report and that the ATSB is as worthless and corrupt as CASA.
To put that another way, the lack of trust reported in the Forsyth review pertaining to the relationship between the industry and CASA, extends as well to the ATSB. I wouldn't know about Airservices.
To put that another way, the lack of trust reported in the Forsyth review pertaining to the relationship between the industry and CASA, extends as well to the ATSB. I wouldn't know about Airservices.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Leadie, I think the identity of the F/O has long been known.
And the site of the crash was YSNF. Unless, of course, you're being quite oblique and the "NFI" part means the obvious in relation to ATSB/CASA, in which case ROTFL.
And the site of the crash was YSNF. Unless, of course, you're being quite oblique and the "NFI" part means the obvious in relation to ATSB/CASA, in which case ROTFL.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Next door to the wrong neighbours
Posts: 243
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
The limit for no decompression amatuer sport diving with either SSA or PADI certification is 42m. Professional divers can and do go much, much deeper using Heliox mixtures. 48m is a walk in the park for a professional in the good visibility apparent from the photos I've seen of the wreck.
Thanks GIII
So what are the rumours about Ms Cupit's family and romantic connections?
YNFI v YSNF? I claim a Freudian slip!
So what are the rumours about Ms Cupit's family and romantic connections?
YNFI v YSNF? I claim a Freudian slip!
I wonder whether the "Wilkes" side has any connection to Matt Wilkes, who was one of Australia's nominees to the ICAO Air Navigation Commission.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory, the Co-Pilot refused to speak to CASA: (legal advice?).
Also, I believe that she refused to attend the "Rural and Regional Affairs Reference's Committee" PEL AIR talkfest leaving the committee no option other than to subponea her which they 'declined' to do.
Which means, of course, that the Senate concluded an investigation and reached conclusions and recommendations re an aviation accident without interviewing both surviving pilots.
I think this is the first time a pilot has NOT been interviewed after such an event!
Couple that with the CVR and it should be enlightening when we hear from the ATSB. Mind you, the retrieval of the CVR is an ATSB responsibility (not CASA) and the boxes should have been recovered and transcribed/interpreted before the Senate set off on its merry way.
The Senate PEL AIR report is generally dismissed as 'politics' by most commentators overseas with whom I have spoken.
Mind you, you will go a long way to find anyone who has either actually read the report or considers the Senate's efforts as anything worthy of other than dismissal.
We will see.
Also, I believe that she refused to attend the "Rural and Regional Affairs Reference's Committee" PEL AIR talkfest leaving the committee no option other than to subponea her which they 'declined' to do.
Which means, of course, that the Senate concluded an investigation and reached conclusions and recommendations re an aviation accident without interviewing both surviving pilots.
I think this is the first time a pilot has NOT been interviewed after such an event!
Couple that with the CVR and it should be enlightening when we hear from the ATSB. Mind you, the retrieval of the CVR is an ATSB responsibility (not CASA) and the boxes should have been recovered and transcribed/interpreted before the Senate set off on its merry way.
The Senate PEL AIR report is generally dismissed as 'politics' by most commentators overseas with whom I have spoken.
Mind you, you will go a long way to find anyone who has either actually read the report or considers the Senate's efforts as anything worthy of other than dismissal.
We will see.
The Senate PEL AIR report is generally dismissed as 'politics' by most commentators overseas with whom I have spoken.
Mind you, you will go a long way to find anyone who has either actually read the report or considers the Senate's efforts as anything worthy of other than dismissal.
Mind you, you will go a long way to find anyone who has either actually read the report or considers the Senate's efforts as anything worthy of other than dismissal.
The politics is a bit of give away in the heading Senate Pel-Air report.
If it wasn't for the Senate report we would not be discussing the contents of the CVR/FDR now.
The co-pilot would have been interviewed by the ATSB and would not have had a choice in the matter under the TSI Act. The details of that interview are not permitted to be released into the public arena however if there is any discrepancy between what was said at the interview and what is on the CVR then that may be included in the updated report.
Can I please take the opportunity to acknowledge the sensible decision to delete some of the recent posts. I have no association with the subject party, but whoever deleted them, has their head screwed on right!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preface: Based on my own understanding from 20+ years in the industry, this is my own call and no one elses
The PIC planned FL350, and fuel planned as such.
Due to the negative RVSM status, the flight was limited to FL280
[conjecture]After several missed approaches due to low viz, the PIC elected to head over water to find the minima.
With gear down (as is obvious by the sea bed photos) ready for approach (see track vs runway alignment), the PIC managed a CFIT, in the water.
PIC subsequently calls it a 'ditching' to avoid being hit by falling debris.[/conjecture]
CASA recognises malfeasance after going through the books, contacts NTSB.
NTSB find FDR/CVR unrecoverable.
Senate think otherwise.
NTSB find FDR/CVR years later.
The next bit becomes interesting
The PIC planned FL350, and fuel planned as such.
Due to the negative RVSM status, the flight was limited to FL280
[conjecture]After several missed approaches due to low viz, the PIC elected to head over water to find the minima.
With gear down (as is obvious by the sea bed photos) ready for approach (see track vs runway alignment), the PIC managed a CFIT, in the water.
PIC subsequently calls it a 'ditching' to avoid being hit by falling debris.[/conjecture]
CASA recognises malfeasance after going through the books, contacts NTSB.
NTSB find FDR/CVR unrecoverable.
Senate think otherwise.
NTSB find FDR/CVR years later.
The next bit becomes interesting
With gear down (as is obvious by the sea bed photos)
Last edited by megan; 18th Feb 2016 at 23:15.
There is a claim that the water impact knocked the gear down. Doesnt look like it in the pictures....so is the gear down and locked or what ?
.....the PinC radioed Norfolk and told them of his intention to ditch and that was recorded.
Assuming the PIC was flying what was the F/O doing and what was happening in the flight deck? Hopefully the CVR might shed some light so that we can all learn.
Would expect gear to be ripped off or the plane to pitchfork if gear was down at time of ditching.
Appalling.
But unsurprising of such a compromised organisation.
When's that muppet Dolan leaving?
But unsurprising of such a compromised organisation.
When's that muppet Dolan leaving?