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 Nov 2011, 02:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Its been almost 2 years and still no report...
When do you think it might be issued?

I tried looking for the old thread, but guess it might have been removed.
Just wondering when the report might be issued, not wanting to speculate or re-invent past discussions.
Cheers,
PD
PaulDamian is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 03:27
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 634
Given how quick the head honcho was to praise the actions of the pilot, it's almost like he's got something to hide.

My money is that they didn't top up before departure because a) fuel was more expensive deeper into the pacific and b) you burn more when you haul more.

Yeah, it was probably (barely) legal, but it'd be fun to know if that was unwritten company policy to save some bucks...
baswell is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 04:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 836
Seems odd that its shrouded in silence
Can the ATSB squash and hide an investigation report
megle2 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 04:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: < 10ft AGL
Posts: 54
Looks like it may be a NZ run investigation for some reason. Or else they are just helping: http://taic.org.nz/Currentinquiries/tabid/89/Page/2/language/en-US/Default.aspx. It's on page 3 - #09-008
S.E.A.L.11 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 05:47
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 768
I tried looking for the old thread, but guess it might have been removed.
Might be this one or this one

Looks like it may be a NZ run investigation for some reason
ATSB has a file - but no report as yet

Last edited by bentleg; 7th Nov 2011 at 06:56.
bentleg is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 11:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,775
My suspicion on this is that the flight was legal, right up to the point where the pilot decided to continue the planned flight rather than divert due to weather. However, it was only legal because of dispensations or approvals granted by CASA and was certainly not prudent.

So, given that affected persons and organisations have the opportunity to review an ATSB report, I suspect that they are taking the opportunity to delay the publication by suggesting changes while they boiler-plate their back-sides for the inevitable kicking that is going to come their way.
PLovett is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 11:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 864
Gunna hafta debate that suspicion Plovett - it was a Charter, not Airwork, so the CHTR regs on fuel did apply.... ergo he shoulda had more go-juice on board.
Jamair is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 13:17
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
Hmm,
did this pilot make a bad decision? I think not. If it were so we'd be talking about in another thread here.

Strikes me as good planning gone to sh*t by the things we cannot control.

Kudos to the pilot for a safe touchdown.....most of us would get spinchter strain doing it in daylight, let alone with out eyes closed

Just my half cent

Jas
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 19:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,509
Strikes me as good planning gone to sh*t by the things we cannot control.
I just coughed on my weetbix when I read that comment.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 19:51
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,331
Strikes me as good planning gone to sh*t by the things we cannot control.
There was nothing out of control on that flight except the decision making process BUT subject to the right combination of organisational culture and operational pressures I fear many of us could have ended up in the same spot.

How many times had he done the same or similar trips?
How many times had he managed to get in when the wx was marginal?
Had he ever received a butt-kicking for making a precautionary diversion for fuel that turned out to be unnecessary?

He didn't go past that CP for diversion knowing they would end up in the drink. He would have been confident that he could get in.

....right up to the point where he wasn't.

Personally, I would love to know how this event has changed the HF culture and the training accross the Rex group
Horatio Leafblower is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 21:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 66
As far as the report goes I think QF32 has probably soaked up a lot of resources so this report just gets put on hold until the investigator can get back to it. The only reason an investigation would be terminated would be if the accident was caused by terroism or a deliberately illegal act e.g. the Kingair barrel role over Mt Hotham.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 21:38
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,775
Jamair, you may be right but I was under the impression that aeromedical work was AWK and not CHTR.

Even if it was CHTR I believe that a CASA dispensation is possible (and I think in this case probable) from the fuel requirements for flights to islands. If this was granted then it was a very poor decision from our regulators.

IIRC this point was debated at some length on one of the previous threads on the topic.
PLovett is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 23:22
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
Hmm,
did this pilot make a bad decision? I think not. If it were so we'd be talking about in another thread here.

Strikes me as good planning gone to sh*t by the things we cannot control.

Kudos to the pilot for a safe touchdown.....most of us would get spinchter strain doing it in daylight, let alone with out eyes closed

Just my half cent

Jas
You have got to be kidding me.

- He departed underfuelled - refer Jamairs post, and regardless of whether or not there was an exemption, he still did not carry prudent fuel.
- He could have diverted to New Cal after he received WX advising that he was now below the alternate minima. Had he been departing that point in space with that WX it would have required an alternate or suitable holding fuel. He had neither the fuel nor the brains to divert.
- He arrived with WX that was even worse still, and knowing he was low on fuel he never declared it or an emergency.
- He flew several VOR approaches which are not runway aligned by a mile or two from memory and require a circle to land.
- After a couple of them he tried yet again.
- He had a F/O that was not endorsed on GPS approaches, yet he was, but they never tried one. The RNAV for RWY 11 IS RUNWAY ALIGNED.
- He could have had the the FO call the numbers for distance and height to the SNFWM and flown a 3 degree profile watching the Radar Alt which it should have had, and flown the RNAV as a sudo ILS, and landed the thing on the runway. Might have been hard work and scary but should work.
- Some folk will argue "but that is descending below the MDA why would I be encouraging busting the minima, well he went well below the minima when he crashed it on the water .

Bloody lucky of the highest order that anyone lived, let alone the patient. Lucky the bloke who spotted them stopped where he did, by rights he had no reason to belive he should have.

So......poor planning, poor in flight monitoring, poor decission making in the cruise and poor decission making once it all turned to sh!t .

So show me one area of this guys flight operation where you can honestly cut him some slack? Maybe commercial pressure prior to departure? If so then he should have diverted in the first instance, and that extra cost would have shoved it right up the ar$e of the company for being so stingy. Of course he did sink a perfectly servicable jet on the bottom of the sea in return.

I too think the ATSB will be getting all manner of requests to distort the facts to minimise the arse covering required for the obvious.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 23:37
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hollister, Hilo, Pago Pago, Norfolk Is., Brisbane, depending which day of the week it is...
Age: 47
Posts: 1,318
Gunna hafta debate that suspicion Plovett - it was a Charter, not Airwork, so the CHTR regs on fuel did apply.... ergo he shoulda had more go-juice on board.
Shouldn't matter if the company ops manual specifies adhereance to CAAP 234-1.
MakeItHappenCaptain is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2011, 00:39
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,471
Kudos to the pilot for a safe touchdown.....most of us would get spinchter strain doing it in daylight, let alone with out eyes closed
As I understand it, the bath came as a bit of a surprise for all concerned!

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2011, 00:42
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Kudos to the pilot for a safe touchdown
Can only agree. However, I cannot help but harbour a slight suspicion that this particular successful touchdown might bear some strong parallels with the story (told, I think, by EK Gann in one of his books [FITH?]) of the Catalina that 'landed' in IMC on a snow-covered Greenland hillside during WW2 - much to the surprise of the Catalina's crew.

Edited to add: I hadn't seen the post immediately above until after posting this observation.
Andu is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2011, 05:04
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 864
WM2 - re the commercial pressures - I hope the ATSB report discusses the medical decision making as well, to proceed on an overwater flight of some several thousand km by night to collect what can only be described as a non-urgent patient who subsequently trod water for 90 min then took a commercial flight the next day....

Plovett, the air ambulance / AWK criteria do not apply because the operator (Pelair) was not the medical provider. The aircraft was chartered by Careflight from Pelair.

Jaba - you forgot leaving the FO behind unconscious in her seat while making his escape over the top of all the other occupants.

Were the CVR & FDR recovered?

Should be interesting reading, IF we ever see it.
Jamair is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2011, 06:01
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 864
Hell yeah Wally, I am agreeing with you! If the med crew had said, for example, that the patients condition did not warrant the risks associated with a long overwater night flight as advised by the tech crew (if indeed that issue was even discussed), then the patient may have elected to take commercial transport the next day, or the insurer may have decided on commercial transport or (gasp!) another service provider; thus denying the anointed company the income.
Jamair is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2011, 08:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
Jaba - you forgot leaving the FO behind unconscious in her seat while making his escape over the top of all the other occupants.
Jamiar......... Yes indeed, I did think about it earlier in my rant, but figured I would leave it to the operational details. So he was a gutless moron too Not quite the hero portrayed in the papers hey.

As Wally said, they survived that is the main thing, and I bet he has trouble sleeping at night knowing what he did...... or he should do.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2011, 10:59
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Here we go again!!

So Jaba..... Have you ever considered contacting both pilots and getting their version of the events?! Just a thought.
Cheers,
DRIVR
GADRIVR 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.