Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

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

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Old 3rd Dec 2017, 03:13
  #1161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 55
Thanks for your feedback Sunfish. If you view the investigation report as a ‘shafting’ of the pilot, then you are missing the point of such investigations.
Down and Welded is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 03:21
  #1162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 55
LB, the ‘we’ I refer to is all of us (those who choose to ruminate on this event).

Yes, I have made a mistake. ‘Got away’ with it. Learnt from it. Didn’t think anyone else shared the responsibility for it.
Down and Welded is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 04:27
  #1163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,693
Midnight, I'd phrase that more strongly. We won't be aware of your alternate(s) and very definitely won't be providing information about them unless you specifically request it.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 05:04
  #1164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,863
We won't be aware of your alternate
I assume you are a controller le Pingouin, just like to ask who is the custodian of the info that goes into a flight plan, info such as alternate, POB etc. Many thanks.
megan is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 05:28
  #1165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,058
Thanks Le P - posted edited accordingly.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 07:54
  #1166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by Down and Welded View Post
LB, the ‘we’ I refer to is all of us (those who choose to ruminate on this event).

Yes, I have made a mistake. ‘Got away’ with it. Learnt from it. Didn’t think anyone else shared the responsibility for it.
Just one mistake. Very impressive!

The PIC of NGA has acknowledged and taken responsibility for his mistakes. He just expects the other people who made mistakes to do the same.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 11:17
  #1167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,693
megan, yes I'm a controller. If you're asking is there some form of ops control then the answer is there is none. Whoever receives the information is responsible for dealing with it appropriately - if it comes from briefing it would be via the flight data coordinator and they'll either add the info themselves or call the controlling sector who will do it. If you tell us via radio the controller will edit the flight plan accordingly (the active version in TAAATS not what you sent to the briefing office or NAIPS) or pass it on to whoever needs to know.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 20:44
  #1168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,803
That’s not what megan asked, le P. But the theme of your and CM’s recent posts is clear: There’s a bunch of stuff that you don’t do.

A result is that the system operates counter-intuitively. Counter-intuitive systems encourage errors.

Intuitively, you’d believe that a flight information service that unilaterally provides information would provide the most important stuff as a priority. But noooo. At time X it can unilaterally provide information Q. At time Y it can unilaterally provide information R. At time Z it can remain silent on information S. Information S could be operationally more important than information Q and R.

The ‘excuse’ is that if you ask for it, you’ll get it, and you’re responsible for asking for it. The people in that stovepipe with their little bowl of rice are not obliged to do otherwise.

But the person on the receiving end is lulled into a false sense of security. They are being told some stuff. It doesn’t make sense that other stuff that could be as or more important can be withheld.

Why bother unilaterally telling me anything, if some important stuff can be withheld as a consequence of ‘the rules’? Better not to lull me into a false sense of security, and instead make it clear that nothing is going to be provided unilaterally and that I have to request everything.

You file a plan with a SARTIME (private jolly) for a flight departing from or terminating at an aerodrome in Class C airspace. Intuitively, you’d believe that if you never depart, the SARTIME would never be ‘active’. But noooo, the SARTIME is active in a different stovepipe of the system.

So then the SARTIME expires and someone’s looking for you. Intuitively, you’d think they’d call the control tower for the aerodrome in Class C airspace nominated as the departure or arrival aerodrome in your filed flight plan, to find out whether you actually departed (or actually arrived, if that was your destination). But noooo. ATC’s stovepipe and little bowl of rice doesn’t extend to dealing with this trivia.

Why am I referring to SARTIMEs about private jollies? Their treatment in the system is analogous to megan’s questions about the nominated alternate(s). Intuitively, you’d believe that the ATC system would be aware of the alternate(s) nominated in a submitted flight plan, and therefore there’d be a responsibility to unilaterally inform you of new information about the alternate(s). But noooo. It’s not this stovepipe’s responsibility - the rice bowl’s too small.

You might wonder why these counter-intuitive circumstances can continue to exist, and why so much effort is exerted to explain what won’t be done do for you.

It’s industrial relations.

Stove pipes and little rice bowls, all jealously and hungrily protected.

And I stress again that I’m not criticising individuals. The problem is the busted system in which they have to work.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 22:13
  #1169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
Why bother unilaterally telling me anything, if some important stuff can be withheld as a consequence of ‘the rules’? Better not to lull me into a false sense of security, and instead make it clear that nothing is going to be provided unilaterally and that I have to request everything.
I think you should give up flying altogether if you don't understand that the ultimate responsibility rests with the PIC for the flight from chocks off to chocks on. Or is it your Public Service mentality that suggests decision making has no consequences? Many years ago ATC had the responsibility for determining whether an aircraft could even attempt to land at an airport and had to give approval for flight plans. If I recall Dick Smith had a lot to say on the subject suggesting that the PIC should have that responsibility(and rightly so), so operational control was taken away from ATC. Now we get desk jockeys crying over the fact that information is not handed to them on a plate and that they have to demean themselves: "to request everything"

Just one mistake. Very impressive!
You have been dining out on your fuel calculations 27 years ago for a while and even in that you blamed the manufacturer's manual.

The PIC of NGA has acknowledged and taken responsibility for his mistakes. He just expects the other people who made mistakes to do the same.
Really? He has never stated where he made his mistakes and recently has stated that even if he had full fuel he would still have had to ditch. I don't recall any acknowledgement of leaving an unconscious F/O in the flight deck or acknowledging that a MAYDAY giving details of where the ditching was going to take place would have been a good idea.

It seems that you have a similar mental model of the responsibilities of PIC and that it is every one else's fault. Like I said at the start you should give up flying altogether.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 22:53
  #1170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the 15th floor
Age: 49
Posts: 363
You sound like a blast to fly with lookleft.
kellykelpie is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2017, 23:21
  #1171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
I think you should give up flying altogether if you don't understand that the ultimate responsibility rests with the PIC for the flight from chocks off to chocks on. Or is it your Public Service mentality that suggests decision making has no consequences? Many years ago ATC had the responsibility for determining whether an aircraft could even attempt to land at an airport and had to give approval for flight plans. If I recall Dick Smith had a lot to say on the subject suggesting that the PIC should have that responsibility(and rightly so), so operational control was taken away from ATC. Now we get desk jockeys crying over the fact that information is not handed to them on a plate and that they have to demean themselves: "to request everything"



You have been dining out on your fuel calculations 27 years ago for a while and even in that you blamed the manufacturer's manual.



Really? He has never stated where he made his mistakes and recently has stated that even if he had full fuel he would still have had to ditch. I don't recall any acknowledgement of leaving an unconscious F/O in the flight deck or acknowledging that a MAYDAY giving details of where the ditching was going to take place would have been a good idea.

It seems that you have a similar mental model of the responsibilities of PIC and that it is every one else's fault. Like I said at the start you should give up flying altogether.
The imposter LL posts again!

I said I made (and continue to make) “plenty” of mistakes. I said my mistake in the particular instance I mentioned - which was about fuel - was an error in my enroute calculations. As a consequence of my mistake I managed to use every drop of useable fuel, as stated in the flight manual for the aircraft.

I’ve seen the PIC on national television say he made mistakes.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 00:43
  #1172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
I’ve seen the PIC on national television say he made mistakes.
Not quite the same as:

The PIC of NGA has acknowledged and taken responsibility for his mistakes.
but then again only to be expected from someone who once said, then retracted, that the F/O was under no obligation to, and did not speak to the ATSB.

You also said that you once made a mistake. You didn't say that you made plenty of mistakes one of which was your fuel miscalculation. I can be as pedantic as you LB. The difference is I don't find it necessary to prove some sense of intellectual superiority. BTW there is only one Lookleft, the other bloke you refer to is entirely a product of your imagination.

KK-there are crew who would agree with you in both ways that your statement can be interpreted.

Last edited by Lookleft; 4th Dec 2017 at 01:21.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 02:29
  #1173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
Not quite the same as:



but then again only to be expected from someone who once said, then retracted, that the F/O was under no obligation to, and did not speak to the ATSB.

You also said that you once made a mistake. You didn't say that you made plenty of mistakes one of which was your fuel miscalculation. I can be as pedantic as you LB. The difference is I don't find it necessary to prove some sense of intellectual superiority. BTW there is only one Lookleft, the other bloke you refer to is entirely a product of your imagination.

KK-there are crew who would agree with you in both ways that your statement can be interpreted.
The real Lookleft was able to read and had comprehension skills.

From my post #1136:
How about you, LL? Have you ever made a mistake that could have resulted in a bad outcome, but luckily didn’t? (I've made plenty.)
From my post #1141:
Another of you Monday morning quarterbacks has already identified the operational lesson: Don't run out fuel. I've already learnt that lesson. I once landed and uploaded an amount of fuel that was exactly the amount of usable fuel stated in the flight manual for the aircraft. Errors in enroute calculations. Never made the same mistake in the 27 years since. But there for the grace of the Quod (may you be touched by the Quod's noodly appendage).
The bit of the post I retracted was my incorrect assertion that the co-pilot had not volunteered information to the ATSB. But neither the PIC nor the co-pilot was obliged to volunteer information to the ATSB. They can be compelled to under section 32 of the TSI Act. Being compelled is not the same as volunteering.

If it is ‘you’, I’d urge you to get a check for early-onset Alzheimer’s. Your reading and comprehension skills have deteriorated, substantially, and the content of your posts is way out of character. Seriously.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 4th Dec 2017 at 03:03.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 03:20
  #1174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
Looking at the FDR data in the final report, it is clear the final approach speed was low, the final descent rate was high, and there was a high spike in the vertical g at impact. Not a criticism of the ditching - difficult at night in poor weather.

This data supports / explains the serious spinal injuries the nurse and doctor sustained.

It is unfortunate this data was not available at the time of the legal proceedings brought about by the nurse and doctor.

This objective crash data (which was always easily obtainable) would have been more helpful to the court than was obtaining undercover video surveillance on the nurse (although this video when played in court only served to substantiate the nurses claim).
slats11 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 03:44
  #1175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 246
I am sure that I will be shot down in saying this, but at the end of the day, a ATPL pilot in charge of a charter flight from an island in the Pacific to a remote island in the Pacific, an island with known variable weather conditions decided to leave with less than full tanks. He could easily have had full fuel capacity within his weight limits. This extra fuel may not have been enough to a diversion from Norfolk Island, but it would of given him the luxury of diverting at a later stage in the flight or a least holding overhead Norfolk Island for a couple of hours or more, flying some more approaches, and possibly getting in. Everything from the point of leaving without full tanks is in some ways pointless as he had removed his safety margin before he left. This is easy for me to say, in my flying career I always left will full tanks, I was not weight limited in the flying I was doing, but as it turned out there were many times I was thankful that I had a few extra gallons and the knowledge of my exact endurance. The PIC was no doubt between a rock and a hard place, but the extra fuel in his tip tanks may have possibly saved all this discussion, and his career. It is easy to be wise after the event.
flywatcher is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 04:27
  #1176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 152
I have been patiently reading these posts and, more importantly reading the report. The time has come when I have to question the opinions of those who seem to suggest that the PIC made the sort of mistakes which are only to be expected in a flying career.

Have they actually read the section of the report on the PIC's fuel planning? How he ended up with less fuel on board for the flight to Norfolk Island (a rather remote place) than he intended to take on his next leg to Melbourne (which is not remote at all) despite that leg being the shorter of the two. How he did not involve his FO in any fuel planning? How he didn't calculate an accurate PNR? How he claimed that cost considerations were a factor in him not taking full fuel with him on departure?

I could go on, but anyone who has read the entire report would know that there were many more issues than those with the PIC's fuel management.
Bull at a Gate is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 08:05
  #1177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,693
Lead Balloon, it's nothing to do with industrial relations. Sigh. It's a management imposed structure to centralise the holding of SARTIMEs in a single location to remove that workload from ATC. We used to hold them but TAAATS really wasn't designed for providing anything but a control service and the process we used to hold SARTIMES was not robust.

As a controller I don't have time to go looking for random information on the off chance that you may need it. It's nothing to do with stovepipes and things being hungrily protected. What you're asking for is the reinstitution of ops which was devolved to the pilot many years ago.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 08:27
  #1178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,058
LB Airservices/ CASA/ATSB/DoTRS etc. aren't to blame for the current system. The changes came in as a result of what industry decided they were and weren’t prepared to pay for. The days of the mantras "User Pays", Affordable Safety" etc.

They weren’t prepared to pay for people in Ops. Control providing an overwatch service & FPA to all IFR aircraft, nor Flight Service, nor people providing VFR a FULLSAR service, nor a handful of briefing offices around the country, nor sundry other stuff.

Personally I’ve always thought that’s about when the standard of pilot training and knowledge/smarts etc. started to go down the tubes for a variety of reasons. Perhaps education suffered, with instructors not knowing too much more than their students, those students becoming instructors and so it goes on.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 09:52
  #1179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 65
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by le Pingouin View Post
Lead Balloon, it's nothing to do with industrial relations. Sigh. It's a management imposed structure to centralise the holding of SARTIMEs in a single location to remove that workload from ATC. We used to hold them but TAAATS really wasn't designed for providing anything but a control service and the process we used to hold SARTIMES was not robust.

As a controller I don't have time to go looking for random information on the off chance that you may need it. It's nothing to do with stovepipes and things being hungrily protected. What you're asking for is the reinstitution of ops which was devolved to the pilot many years ago.

Absolutely! In the olden days, DCA/CAA/Dotas/CASA had Operational Control. Someone in a building had overall management of a flight ,rated higher than the PIC. They would call you up via enroute comms and tell you things that might be helpful to you. The downside was that they would also call you up and tell you that airports were closed to you, and other unhelpful things like imposing unexpected holding time on you etc. Then Operational control was abolished and control reverted to the PIC and the operator. A good thing. But they stopped calling you up with things you didn’t need and didn’t like. However you the PIC were in control of your destiny. You had to manage your flight. You had to make sure you had the info you needed/ wanted. If you couldn’t get it by method A you got it by method B and if method B wasn’t possible you used method C.
IMHO the abolition of Operational control was a good thing but you had to understand that there was no one ther3 to chang3 you nappy any longer.

Last edited by JamieMaree; 4th Dec 2017 at 10:07.
JamieMaree is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2017, 11:55
  #1180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: melbourne australia
Posts: 81
Let us not forget that when a certain enthusiast became Chairman of the Board of the predecessor to CASA, such items as the mandatory 2 hours Island Holding for Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands were also dispensed with.

Blackburn
blackburn is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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