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 11th Dec 2017, 05:40
  #1261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 312
Wow - So if you have more fuel, you have more time? I’ll have to write that down in my “Big Book Of Wisdom I’ve Learnt From People With Actual Operational Experience”.
LB there is no need to be facetious.
It does you no credit.
I was merely pointing out that ( usually) the quality of decision making improves with the time taken to make the decision and this can have an impact when making a divert decision. The reason better decisions normally result is that more information is gathered prior to making the decision.
The only reason I made the comments was because you asserted
At least we all seem to be in agreement that even if he’d carried full fuel, the PIC was committed to a ditching somewhere if he couldn’t get into YSNF.
I disagree and think the decision making in the late stages of the cruise may well have been different if more fuel was carried. That is all.
Statements like
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, patient’s partner and medical equipment all contribute to MTOW. It also makes a difference to how much ‘thrust for the buck’ that you get. And TOW affects how quickly you can get ‘up there’.

Apparently the SG of jet fuel varies, substantially, across various ports.
make me wonder if you’re qualified to pass comment on this at all because even a year one Second Officer views the above knowledge as ‘a given’.
73qanda is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 06:18
  #1262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,838
The only qualification to make comment on PPRuNe is a user name and password. I’m scared of heights and aircraft, so haven’t any actual operational experience.

That’s why I’d like you experts to identify, with precision, the flaws in Mssrs Davies and Aherne’s maths and reasoning, and to identity, with precision, what you would have done, when, to avoid ending up in the water.

So far I take CB’s point that more fuel on arrival at YSNF would have given the PIC a greater chance of finding a break in the weather. But it wasn’t going to get the aircraft to an alternate.

It’s the decision to press on to YSNF that’s the problem. What would you have done, when, to avoid ending up in the water? What, and when, precisely?

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 11th Dec 2017 at 06:29.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 06:21
  #1263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
So it seems the operator also took the view that a trap was set for the PIC by what was volunteered in contrast to what was withheld.
You are the only person using the word "trap".

make me wonder if you’re qualified to pass comment on this at all because even a year one Second Officer views the above knowledge as ‘a given’.
The short answer is no he is not. LB is a smart arse ex-CASA lawyer who thinks that the only wisdom that is relevant is his. As an example:

You use phrases like “conspiracy theory” in an attempt to discredit people who have a different view than you. It does you no credit.
Yet is quite happy to suggest that there are two people posting under the one name in order to and I quote "discredit people who have a different view than you." So he is either suggesting a conspiracy of his own or paranoid or both.


He can't fathom that the "legal" framework is not failsafe and all you need when operating as a PIC responsible for crew and passengers. He refuses to accept any part of the revised report because it is from a government organisation, as he is himself. So using his logic anything he contributes is not worth considering.

Desk jockeys like Lead Balloon will never understand the difference between flying every now and then for private purposes and flying for commercial purposes. He will also never understand the difference between being responsible for yourself and being responsible for others.

On top of everything else that went on with NGA the PIC left an unconscious F/O with serious injuries in the flight deck while he went down the back of the aircraft,opened the escape hatch and was the first to evacuate the aircraft. For some bizarre reason that doesn't generate any discussion from the desk jockeys. It doesn't fit the narrative that the PIC was set up to fail by everyone else but him. It also highlights the complete lack of understanding of the role and responsibility of any PIC.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 07:05
  #1264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,395
"On top of everything else that went on with NGA the PIC left an unconscious F/O with serious injuries in the flight deck while he went down the back of the aircraft,opened the escape hatch and was the first to evacuate the aircraft."

Are you implying that the PIC acted in a craven, cowardly fashion of everyman for himself?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 07:19
  #1265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
I'm just stating the facts of the event as written in both reports and also on 4 Corners. When people compare the two ditchings that occurred in 2009 and the relative heroics of the Captains, just remember that Sully was the last person off his aircraft.

What you want to interpret Thorn Bird is up to you. Speaking of craven cowardly when are you going to explain why Gobbledock doesn't appear on Aunty anymore? Don't tell me he has been silenced by his good mates like yourself and Karryon.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 09:53
  #1266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 65
Posts: 107
When you are operating a flight you take off with an amount of fuel called your endurance. It may be 1 hours worth or 15 hours worth. You have a mission which is set to be accomplished. It may be to from Mascot to Los Angeles or Mascot to Richmond. As PIC you need to achieve what is possible with the fuel you’ve got. If you’ve only got 1 hours worth and you’re trying to do Mascot Los Angeles you turn around before you get to TOC and go back to Mascot. If you’ve got 15 hours worth and you’re going Mascot to Richmond there are many things you can do while airborne before you have to land at Mascot or Richmond or a lot of other places that take your fancy.
The point being if you take off from Apia and you are trying to get to NFI, you do what you can do with the fuel you’ve got, not what you should have had or not what you could have had. Most answers to this mission don’t include ditching in the ocean.
I contend that as PIC your bread and butter task is to take every action that is possible to ensure that this is not the end result.
The incompetence of your employer and the inadequacy of CASA in whatever capacity do not detract from this responsibility in my opinion.
JamieMaree is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 10:50
  #1267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 168
Spot on JamieMaree

Once the die is cast, it is then up to the PIC, in consultation with the crew, to achieve a successful outcome to the flight.

The PIC worked for Pelair and was aware of the shortcomings of the company, and we all operate under the annex of CASA, and that's a minefield at the best of times.
Roj approved is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 11:08
  #1268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 152
As the report reveals, he loaded less fuel on his flight to Norfolk Island than he planned to load for the onward flight to Melbourne, despite the onward leg being shorter and to a destination with plenty of alternates. Does that not say a lot about his fuel planning?
Bull at a Gate is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 12:29
  #1269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,560
As PIC you need to achieve what is possible with the fuel you’ve got.
Yes - but before that, as PIC you decide on the fuel load. It isn't given to you by a random number generator!
Checkboard is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 15:21
  #1270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back too the hot bits again
Posts: 78
just wondering if the same level of scrutiny and angst was directed at the QF 330 pilot who declared a mayday due fuel and landed on his third attempt at Perth a few years ago. Or is that a totally different scenario
Ethel the Aardvark is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 05:43
  #1271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,395
"I'm just stating the facts......."

You sure of your "facts"?

"just remember that Sully was the last person off his aircraft."

I seem to recall Sully had a full complement of highly trained Cabin crew in the back to initiate and manage evacuation

"What you want to interpret Thorn Bird is up to you."

I would interpret that you are attempting to besmirch a fellow pilot as a coward.

As for this Gobbledock fellow you seem so paranoid about, I know him not, other than an anonymous poster with an interest in aviation.

Just as you imply that Dom James is a coward, you imply I have something to do with the management of the "other" blog.

The "facts" are I post my opinions on it from time to time, as I do on PPRuNe, I have no involvement other than that.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 07:35
  #1272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Yep page 200 of the new report.

I seem to recall Sully had a full complement of highly trained Cabin crew in the back to initiate and manage evacuation
He also had 165 pax, he waited until they were all off before evacuating himself.

I would interpret that you are attempting to besmirch a fellow pilot as a coward.
Your call and your call only. I have never stated that PIC was a coward. All I have said is that "the pilot as victim" doesn't quite wash when you look at the facts, and whichever way you want to interpret it TB they are facts.

As for this Gobbledock fellow you seem so paranoid about, I know him not,
As Karryon is fond of quoting The Bard "I thinketh you protesteth too much"

05-24-2015, 08:08 PM
In regards to Question 125 and in relation to Bankstown airports master plan, can anyone confirm if the rumor is true that a bac Devco director (surname Gray) is related to a CAsA Board member/Brisbane Airport Corporation director (surname also Gray)?
Jut curious.

Dunno about Mr Gray Gobbles, but I believe the Chairman of the FAC BAL's predecessor was also the chairman of Goodmans, who own Moorabin and who developed the TOLL shed at Bankstown.

Meanwhile at Bankstown and the issue of contaminents, this article HERE -from the AAP.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 23:05
  #1273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Thorn Bird- I just thought that I would demonstrate for you what true cowardice looks like courtesy of your "mates" at aunty Their little desk jockey P2 who can be found on this thread under the name Sarcs, not being content to push the pilot as victim line has now taken to attacking the F/O for taking controlled rest and not telling the "Captain" how much fuel he should take.

The first officer recalled that the flight from Norfolk Island to Apia had taken 3 hours 16 minutes, and the return flight was expected to take 30 minutes longer due to the headwinds..."

Hmm...so why didn't the FO challenge the Captain and ask for a review of his fuel calculations and reasoning for not refilling the tip tanks? Especially when you consider that the FO was the designated PF and therefore technically ICUS.
This is the problem with desk jockeys when they start using terms that they have no idea of what they mean. The F/O is technically the F/O! Just being the PF does not automatically mean you are ICUS FFS. The PIC may be PM for the sector but at all times is the PIC. Also for the benefit of numpties like P2 as PM he was responsible for all communications. He was also responsible for the conduct of the controlled rest on the flight deck IAW the Pelair manuals. So when the F/O was taking controlled rest our "pilot as victim" was PF,PM and as always PIC! Get that through your thick skull desk jockey!


Quote from page 23:

..As the first officer had not flown the leg from Apia to Norfolk Island before, the captain asked her if she would like to be the pilot flying. The first officer agreed...

After contemplating all of the above I have to keep pinching myself that the FO was the PF for this flight. Personally I always saw a FO pilot flying leg as an opportunity to display your aptitude and ability for a future command upgrade. Therefore I find it quite reprehensible that the FO saw fit to make an ICUS decision to take a non-compliant 'cockpit nap'.

The command aptitude aside, just consider that if the FO had of been compliant with the FRMS 'crew nap' conditions that she may just have heard the 0801 exchange and therefore may have questioned and discussed the mixed weather messages received from Nadi. This may have led to Nadi discovering the MIA 0739 SPECI & 0803 AMD TAF and (as they say) all this would be history...
So the entire episode is the F/O's fault! If that is your personal view then like your good mate Lead Balloon (aka Creampuff) you know absolutely nothing about anything going on forward of the cockpit bulkhead. In case you missed my point the PIC is responsible for the entire flight and as PM is responsible for all communications.

To blame the F/O is the mark of a true coward so what say you now thorn bird? Interesting that that other numpty, Karryon, seems to have lost control of his own website. First he ditches his good mate Gobbledock now he lets his seriously out of touch mate P2 start sprouting accusations that the entire accident was the F/O's fault for not being Captain enough! Oh the irony

No wonder the F/O hasn't spoken publically. The "pilot as victim" as far as I am aware has never acknowledged that the F/O was seriously injured and also has never acknowledged that a flight, he was in Command of, led to the serious injury of the flight nurse.

As far as I am aware the only injury he suffered was that of reputation. He has been flying over the past few years but as an F/O. Many pilots who have been Captains or have had the opportunity for command have found themselves in the RHS for an extended period of time. I have seen it in every airline I have flown for,its not unusual yet this bloke thinks its a conspiracy. Lets hope the time in the RHS has given him an insight into the responsibilities and conduct of a PIC. From what I have read recently though I have my doubts.

As for that other website I am not surprised that it has degenerated, from an already low base, into a space where desk jockeys run free to make uninformed statements and observations about things they have very little experience of. You should hang your head in shame Karryon.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 10:22
  #1274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,776
Gentlemen, why don't we all give it a rest. The same points are getting thrashed over time and time again without any resolution or likely agreement. What happened on that night is, for us, mere speculation as we were not there. Not even the ATSB can say with any certainty what exactly happened.

What we can learn, and should learn, is the apparent mistakes that were made to ensure it doesn't happen again. Not only by the flight crew but also by the operator and the regulator. We should all be concerned that the regulator does not appear to have upped their game in respect of these particular type of flights with their shoddy legislation and the lack of proper oversight of the operator.

I leave it at that.
PLovett is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 22:28
  #1275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
For the most part the same points are discussed but never before has anyone suggested that the reason the accident occurred was because the F/O wasn't "Captain" enough. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how flight crew sops work.

I have to disagree that what happened is mere speculation. A report of over 500 pages doesn't leave much left to speculate on. I agree that aeromed flights should not be considered aerial work is a concern.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 23:10
  #1276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 55
Agree with PLovett re the thread having gone about as far as it needs to. Disagree re 'speculation' (and the gentlemen thing.... sorry gals). ATBS reports state with certainty what they KNOW with certainly... it's part of their remit to make their case (read the Analysis section of their reports). Where they have no recourse other than to speculate (use of words such as 'likely', 'probably', etc) then that is made clear too.

I think the reporting into this incident conveys more certainty than speculation.

The pilot will have one last opportunity (potentially) to influence how he looks--emerging from this incident--and perhaps even to acquire a degree of self-satisfaction. The movie will be made, and although it might be viewed by some as another investigation (or another slant on this investigation), it should be remembered that it will be nothing but a commercial vehicle, and the promoters will do whatever it takes to claw bums onto seats in cinemas.
Down and Welded is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 09:07
  #1277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,231
I have difficulty understanding why they continued past the PNR/PSD without requesting - and getting - the latest wx report before committing themselves. Even then, I'd want weather that guarantees a landing, and not something deteriorating.

Also, why would you not carry as much fuel as possible? It delays the PNR/PSD to closer to the destination, and gives more time available on arrival.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 09:19
  #1278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by Tinstaafl View Post
I have difficulty understanding why they continued past the PNR/PSD without requesting - and getting - the latest wx report before committing themselves.
They did.
Even then, I'd want weather that guarantees a landing, and not something deteriorating.
”Guarantees”? Good luck with that.
Also, why would you not carry as much fuel as possible? It delays the PNR/PSD to closer to the destination, and gives more time available on arrival.
Indeed. Strange that “as much fuel as possible” wasn’t an SOP for inbound YSNF in the operator’s CASA-accepted and audited ops manual.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 14:50
  #1279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,560
I have difficulty understanding why they continued past the PNR/PSD without requesting - and getting - the latest wx report
There is no indication that the pilots calculated a PNR/PSD. The ATSB calculated several, in order to place the receipt of the weather in context, and they asked the Captain how he would calculate one - but there is no indication that the crew did, or were aware.

Originally Posted by ATSB report, page 185
Some Westwind pilots reported they routinely used how-goes-it charts for relevant flights. However, most pilots, including the captain of the accident flight, reported they did not use the charts and had not been taught how to use them.
The OM indicated a how-goes-it chart could be used to calculate a CP, but there was no mention of such charts in relation to a PNR. The standards manager agreed that such graphs are used for calculating PNRs rather than CPs.


...



The captain of the accident flight reported that, for a situation involving an off-track alternate aerodrome, he would initially work out if he could fly from the destination aerodrome to the alternate aerodrome with the required fuel reserves. If not, he would identify the last waypoint he could reach and still divert with the required fuel reserves. He would then know that the PNR was beyond this waypoint. This involved using the aircraft’s GPS to determine the distance and/or flight time to the last waypoint he could reach, and charts to determine the distance from that waypoint to the alternate aerodrome.
After the captain had passed the last waypoint he could reach, his method involved conducting periodic checks of whether he was still able to divert from his current position. This involved using the aircraft’s GPS to calculate the distance to the alternate aerodrome.
The captain reported that when checking his capacity to divert, he would use the aircraft’s current fuel flow and his best estimate of the expected groundspeed, given the aircraft’s current groundspeed and what information he had regarding the winds if he diverted. For the accident flight, the captain stated he would have based his diversion wind estimates on the current wind he was experiencing. Given that he did not have the current TAFs and NOTAMs for Nadi and Noumea, he would have based his estimations of the PNR on the assumption that these aerodromes were suitable for landing (that is, not also affected by adverse weather).


...




The first officer stated she knew how to do PNR calculations, and she reported she had done calculations on some flights. However, she could not recall doing PNR calculations on the accident flight.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 19th Dec 2017, 17:09
  #1280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,914
in the operator’s CASA-accepted and audited ops manual
They just accept the ops manual, they make no determination that the information contained there in is correct, particular with respect to aircraft information. Flew for an operator whose V1 take off data compiled in a ready use cockpit chart, and in the ops manual, guaranteed you would crash following a failure at higher temps if you elected to go following failure at, or after, V1. Chief pilots who write these things don't necessarily know the subject matter about what they decree. Cast a very jaundiced eye.
megan 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.