Engine Failure in Cruise - Inflight Decision Making
With respect Leadsled, I think Tinstaafl is referring to CAO 20.7.4, which is still in force, due mainly to the snail's pace of the regulatory reform process in Australia.
Wally Mk.2,
A very good example of the brutal fact: A Light twin is a single engine aircraft with twice the chance of engine failure.
Tootle pip!!
PS: And never forget, there are more fatal accidents after an engine failure in a twin than in a single --- FAA.
A very good example of the brutal fact: A Light twin is a single engine aircraft with twice the chance of engine failure.
Tootle pip!!
PS: And never forget, there are more fatal accidents after an engine failure in a twin than in a single --- FAA.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't understand why there is all this discussion of rules/regs... when I last studied Av Law (admittedly some time ago, in NZ) there was a rule that said essentially: in a time of emergency, biff the rule-book out the window and just do whatever you need to do to recover safely -but be prepared to have to justify your decisions and actions. To my way of thinking that was all just PinC responsibility -the PinC is always the final arbiter of the flights' conduct. Commercial pressures should never figure into your thinking in an emergency situation.
Stacko, fair enough and no one has tried to ditch your thinking 
Unusual for Pp
Unusual for Pp
Radio Saigon,
That's what the rules should be, but are not in Australia.
The CAO covering continuation of flight after an engine failure is reasonably specific, and reasonable of itself, and all too often ignored in favor of commercial considerations.
The authority of the pilot in command here is not as clear-cut as the NZ or FAA regulations.
Tootle pip!!
That's what the rules should be, but are not in Australia.
The CAO covering continuation of flight after an engine failure is reasonably specific, and reasonable of itself, and all too often ignored in favor of commercial considerations.
The authority of the pilot in command here is not as clear-cut as the NZ or FAA regulations.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Jan 2013 at 02:44.
Leadsled,
I was taught, and would do the same. CASA can stick the rule book up their arse.
If I declare a mayday or even a pan pan, the sky is mine. I will tell ATC what I am doing, I certainly won't be requesting it.
If I never flew again, but got everyone home in one piece, then that is what I signed up to do. I'd post my licence to them with compliments.
There is a reason why the best and brightest are usually in the Airlines and Airforce, while the blithering idiots end up in the regulator.
I was taught, and would do the same. CASA can stick the rule book up their arse.
If I declare a mayday or even a pan pan, the sky is mine. I will tell ATC what I am doing, I certainly won't be requesting it.
If I never flew again, but got everyone home in one piece, then that is what I signed up to do. I'd post my licence to them with compliments.
There is a reason why the best and brightest are usually in the Airlines and Airforce, while the blithering idiots end up in the regulator.
The reality is that whatever you do, if there is a happy ending you'll be declared a hero. If there's not a happy ending - no matter what you do - ATSB &/or CASA will find a way to blame you.
But I think a clear lesson from the PGW incident is to declare the emergency and dictate to ATC rather than vice-versa. Then go and see lawyers when you get on the ground.
But I think a clear lesson from the PGW incident is to declare the emergency and dictate to ATC rather than vice-versa. Then go and see lawyers when you get on the ground.
