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 7th Dec 2017, 22:53
  #1221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Too funny LB. Despite our allegedly well crafted responses too each other in the end we get lumped into the same basket labeled "skygods". I doubt megan will be able to get any clearer picture from your post to clear up his post about any previous post.

Thankyou Ventus for posting Richard Davies CV. Doesn't make his contribution any more credible though as ED states:
I am working my way through Mr Davies' contribution to the fuel dilemma, I find his assumptions no more "correct" than any others' assumptions.
and as LB stated:


Thatís whatís called a mere ďappeal to authorityĒ.
In the end his calculations of the FOD was nearly half that of the actual fuel at ToD as stated in the report.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 00:15
  #1222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,706
So, how do we go about ascertaining the correct numbers?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 02:02
  #1223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Lead Balloon, I am going to start with full tanks, both main and tips.
Now, someone explain to me why this aircraft will not attain altitude with full tanks, when I see from previous flights that it did. After this is settled there are a few more details required.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 03:02
  #1224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
So, how do we go about ascertaining the correct numbers?
If you don't want to accept the ATSB's methodology then you have to come up with your own. R Davies figures were based on the information provided to him by whoever commissioned him so his figures can only be considered "correct" in that context. The ATSB sets out the different methods that Pelair used to determine fuel. Either the fuel/hour figures or the 23lb/min method. I am assuming that the fuel figure quoted at ToD was derived off the FDR. For me the bigger issue is what was done with that fuel once the PIC realised that the weather had deteriorated and they couldn't divert.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 06:09
  #1225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 269
What DJ did was 'reasonable". He complied with rules and regulations and still failed. This throws into doubt CASA's entire regulatory strategy - for which DJ is still being punished, unjustly.
Thatís only an opinion Sunfish. Iím not saying youíre wrong but it is just one persons opinion that what DJ did was Ďreasonableí.
Obviously some people think his decision making was not up to scratch, you obviously think his decision making was ok. Such is life.
At the end of the day if all a PinC had to do was comply with the legal minimums we would be seeing fuel emergencies left right and center. But they donít, they have to put on enough fuel to keep the aircraft safe and make a series of decisions along the flight that ensure that the reserve fuel is never used. Thatís the goal. Unless youíre at war completion of the mission is secondary to ensuring that reserve fuel is not used. I sometimes wonder if some pilots realise that.
73qanda is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:10
  #1226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the 15th floor
Age: 49
Posts: 363
I agree with that but I think some pilots forget that itís a business at the end of the day and the fuel policy has already been risk assessed by CASA.
kellykelpie is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:15
  #1227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 269
I prefer my own risk assessment as the CAA rarely turns up to discuss the forecast with me
73qanda is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:25
  #1228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the 15th floor
Age: 49
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by 73qanda View Post
I prefer my own risk assessment as the CAA rarely turns up to discuss the forecast with me

Oh - so you can interpret the fuel requirements without CASA.
kellykelpie is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:32
  #1229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 65
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by kellykelpie View Post
Oh - so you can interpret the fuel requirements without CASA.
CASA and your employer set the MINIMUM requirements
JamieMaree is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:36
  #1230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,706
And what were the factors at the start of the flight that indicated more than the ‘minimum’ fuel requirements should be carried? Other than hindsight.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:37
  #1231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 269
Calm down kellyk, no need for obvious indignation, my response was supposed to be light hearted.
Iím not really sure what your driving at with
Oh - so you can interpret the fuel requirements without CASA.
I do what most do and ensure that the flight planners have built the plan IAW the regs and that provides me with the absolute minimum fuel I can legally depart with, then I decide what I want to depart with, from there I have two figures in front of me, what I think is a safe quantity, and what the rules say is the minimum quantity. I simply choose the highest one and have it loaded. Easy.
73qanda is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:43
  #1232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 269
LB and Kellyk, my comments above are not meant to be a criticism of DJ or of that flight. I was just trying to answer kellyís cryptic comment about CAsA when he brought into question how I personally do my fuel planning. My days of building plans like DJ had to are twenty years past.
73qanda is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 10:13
  #1233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: On the 15th floor
Age: 49
Posts: 363
Yes - sorry qanda. Out of line. Iím at dinner and a few wines - you know. Apologies.
kellykelpie is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 12:32
  #1234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Well people,

I guess we (not the royal we) but supporters and them with malice and aforethought, can now put this debate to bed.

I understand that today Mr James completed a $25,000 Check flight with two CAsA "experts" who's time cost around $160 per hour, each, and has been cleared to complete his final command check to line, which will probably run to another $25,000.

Nice little earner for CAsA, one big expense for the operator, but maybe someone somewhere thought eight years in purgatory was enough.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 18:34
  #1235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,299
73ganda - I have no opinion on what DJ did or didn't do. I stated that the test for a legal conviction is what is "reasonable" as determined by the Court.

DJ complied with his employers instructions and the regulations. Neither CASA or ATSB could show that what he did was unreasonable.

He thus demonstrated the existence of a gaping hole in CASA's regulatory strategy - that the regulations are strict of necessity to keep the public safe and that adherence to the letter guarantees a safe outcome.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 19:35
  #1236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,475
DJ complied with his employers instructions and the regulations.
Apart from guessing the wind instead of checking it, and not catering for engine out/depressurisation en-route.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 01:47
  #1237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,299
Originally Posted by Checkboard View Post
Apart from guessing the wind instead of checking it, and not catering for engine out/depressurisation en-route.
Those are matters for a court to consider. The pilot has to have regard to these matters but doesn't have to do anything specific about them.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 03:07
  #1238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
The pilot has to have regard to these matters but doesn't have to do anything specific about them.
And that is the grey area. If a normal landing results then the system works. If a non-normal landing results then the PIC has not allowed for the weakness in the system.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 03:48
  #1239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,706
One of the interesting points made in another very meticulous analysis of the first report - that of Mr Aherne here: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore....9-f376f64e4024 and note there were numerous attachments and 5 supplements to that document - is about the speculation around the depressurisation scenario and fuel options that would have been legally available to the PIC. I understand him to be saying that you have to know the specific gravity of the particular fuel to be uploaded, as the weight of the fuel and the weight of medical staff, patient, patientís partner and medical equipment all contribute to MTOW. It also makes a difference to how much Ďthrust for the buckí that you get. And TOW affects how quickly you can get Ďup thereí.

Apparently the SG of jet fuel varies, substantially, across various ports.

I understand one conclusion of his analysis against the applicable requirements is that the Westwind couldnít actually comply in many operational circumstances.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 08:44
  #1240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Lead Balloon, Interesting discussion here about density, volume and energy,

Temperature vs. Fuel Density
Eddie Dean 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.