Lord Howe Island accident
Typical idiotic bureaucracy.
Clive use to give weather and sea reports to my dad when he flew the Sandringhams to Lord Howe in the early 70's.
As someone who has intimated knowledge of the vagaries of Lord Howe weather Clive is someone who I'd trust for an accurate appraisal.
Instead we have a forecast that at best is an estimate by someone who has never been to Lord Howe.
If I was the operator I'd have just called Clive and asked what was happening.
Clive use to give weather and sea reports to my dad when he flew the Sandringhams to Lord Howe in the early 70's.
As someone who has intimated knowledge of the vagaries of Lord Howe weather Clive is someone who I'd trust for an accurate appraisal.
Instead we have a forecast that at best is an estimate by someone who has never been to Lord Howe.
If I was the operator I'd have just called Clive and asked what was happening.
Unless it is massively over insured it will be a write off.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 4th Nov 2017 at 14:04. Reason: Edited to make sense, sorry folks.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia at the moment
Posts: 177
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about the digital dysfunction (aka finger trouble) in my last post. And no, I can't even blame the turps (sadly), just not paying attention.
As to the AIC being withdrawn, what ADO Nonsense 2.0 evolves will be interesting, as what really needs to happen is that most of the regulation that has caused the problem should be repealed, and a hugely simplifies and brief AC (Advisory Circular) written, covering how to establish a simple GPS position, and send it to Airservices.
Say, for example, it must be a Registered Surveyor, who must fill in FormXXX and post/fax/email/SMS to "the address at the top of the page".
As a "general rule" (used as an English expression, not a request for another regulation with a Strict Liability 50 penalty points hit) a change need only be submitted when something changes, not an annual event.
Don't hold your breath.
Tootle pip!!
As to the AIC being withdrawn, what ADO Nonsense 2.0 evolves will be interesting, as what really needs to happen is that most of the regulation that has caused the problem should be repealed, and a hugely simplifies and brief AC (Advisory Circular) written, covering how to establish a simple GPS position, and send it to Airservices.
Say, for example, it must be a Registered Surveyor, who must fill in FormXXX and post/fax/email/SMS to "the address at the top of the page".
As a "general rule" (used as an English expression, not a request for another regulation with a Strict Liability 50 penalty points hit) a change need only be submitted when something changes, not an annual event.
Don't hold your breath.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless it is massively over insured it will be a write off.
In this case if it's paid out you need to add the salvage costs on top but it's still got some value in parting it out so it won't be a total financial loss.
I know of one aircraft brought for around $80,000 insured for I think $150,000 or $170,000. It crashed and was paid out full amount.
Another insured for around $200,000 was written off and offer was made to replace it with another aircraft. That offer was rejected by the owner and was fully paid out - but the owner was then responsible for the salvage.
Another brought for $170,000 insured for $200,000 and paid out full $200,000.
It would appear there is some salvage value to this aircraft.
Another insured for around $200,000 was written off and offer was made to replace it with another aircraft. That offer was rejected by the owner and was fully paid out - but the owner was then responsible for the salvage.
Another brought for $170,000 insured for $200,000 and paid out full $200,000.
It would appear there is some salvage value to this aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit confused as to what the ATSB chooses to investigate. Are they not investigating this because there were no fatalities? Because this could have easily been an accident where there were.
Even if the operator and the pilot were doing everything correctly, then any investigation of this would have been a good study on lessons learned and how improvements can be made. After all in a lot of the travel magazines Lord Howe Island is touted as a place to go and the QF flights are always pretty full, so smaller charter operators are looking to go there and they may not have much experience if any with the place.
Unfortunately I think this aircraft will be broken up and will make it's way back on a barge, as these photos only show a small amount of the damage.
If the operator and crew had done everything correctly, then maybe they could write an article for one of the Aviation magazines here in Australia and share the lessons that they learned from this experience.
Even if the operator and the pilot were doing everything correctly, then any investigation of this would have been a good study on lessons learned and how improvements can be made. After all in a lot of the travel magazines Lord Howe Island is touted as a place to go and the QF flights are always pretty full, so smaller charter operators are looking to go there and they may not have much experience if any with the place.
Unfortunately I think this aircraft will be broken up and will make it's way back on a barge, as these photos only show a small amount of the damage.
If the operator and crew had done everything correctly, then maybe they could write an article for one of the Aviation magazines here in Australia and share the lessons that they learned from this experience.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the operator and crew had done everything correctly, then maybe they could write an article for one of the Aviation magazines here in Australia and share the lessons that they learned from this experience.
Yup, Lord Howe is a very challenging destination, especially when the wind doth blow. Always wise to take Clives advice, when he was allowed to give it. Wonder how many necks he's saved over the years, probably mine a couple of times when he convinced me discretion was the better part of valour.
Yup, Lord Howe is a very challenging destination, especially when the wind doth blow. Always wise to take Clives advice, when he was allowed to give it. Wonder how many necks he's saved over the years, probably mine a couple of times when he convinced me discretion was the better part of valour.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the way insurance mobs work,is that if it's over insured, it's replaced with another elderly aircraft, and if it's under-insured, you get paid out.
If it is UNDER insured the underwriter may deduct the amount it is under correct value from the pay out, standard insurance market policy.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember going out to LHI before the windy point wind was on the AWIS but you could talk to the BOM meteorologist on the radio, but was told while visiting the office there on one occasion that CAsA has told them (BOM) to stop using the radio as they did not hold a valid radio licence and could not talk to aircraft. Once again a great safety outcome from the regulator. At least they put the windy point data onto the AWIS after that.
This is a disgrace.
Has it been deliberately ignored because an investigation may implicate the regulator?
Is this reporting strategy worse or better than the Westwind debacle? Two different ATSB techniques to the same problem.
I’ve been wondering when bureaucratic red tape was finally going to materialise into an actual prang.
Has it been deliberately ignored because an investigation may implicate the regulator?
Is this reporting strategy worse or better than the Westwind debacle? Two different ATSB techniques to the same problem.
I’ve been wondering when bureaucratic red tape was finally going to materialise into an actual prang.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if there is any connection between the then CASA officer that issued the edict to the LHI harbour master to stop passing weather to aircraft(until he completed a course) and anybody now working in a senior position at the ATSB?
Might just explain why the Bureau has declined to investigate this 'occurrence'.
I suspect you can stop wondering Slippery Pete.
CC
Might just explain why the Bureau has declined to investigate this 'occurrence'.
I’ve been wondering when bureaucratic red tape was finally going to materialise into an actual prang.
CC
Sticky, he means UNDER insured. The thieving ba$tards claim that you are a "co-insurer" if the item is under insured so you bear a part of the risk. Nice little catch, isn't it?
Folks,
Mustfa is quite correct on co-insurance.
You MUST understand the details of the insurance, particularly if you are the pilot or hire an aircraft.
The "default" in many (most?) Australian aircraft insurance policies also allows to insurer to pursue the pilot (not being an employee) for recovery of its loss, having paid out the insured.
As I recall, aviation insurance is legally exempted from most insurance consumer protection standards required by law.
Tootle pip!!
Mustfa is quite correct on co-insurance.
You MUST understand the details of the insurance, particularly if you are the pilot or hire an aircraft.
The "default" in many (most?) Australian aircraft insurance policies also allows to insurer to pursue the pilot (not being an employee) for recovery of its loss, having paid out the insured.
As I recall, aviation insurance is legally exempted from most insurance consumer protection standards required by law.
Tootle pip!!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That makes no sense, you mean OVER insured.
Definitely not, stickwiththetruth, there is no penalty in being over insured, being under insured means you are paying less premium than you should and can incur a penalty. You will find the answers amongst this lot: https://www.google.com.au/search?sou....0.Vua8ohP6jWw
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely not, stickwiththetruth, there is no penalty in being over insured
1. The aircraft can be replaced with one of market value, thus you never get the "extra" $$ that it was insured for and you end up with something not as good as what you had.
2. If the damage is incurred by a third party, the third party insurance company may refuse to pay the full amount that you are insured for, because you were over insured... and why should they pay higher than market value?
On the flip side, if you're under insured and a third party writes off your plane, your insurance company can request market value for your aircraft which is a win for you. That being said, it sounds good, but rarely does it happen because usually it's the pilot of your aircraft that damages it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The blame a few posts above points the finger at not having someone to provide a met service. Sorry, but that wasn’t what caused the accident. If the wind was indeed up to 50kts as reported, it would have been on the AWIS. Why the need to continue attempts to land in such windy conditions? What was the fuel state that pushed the crew towards this decision? Was there enough to go back to the mainland?
If the rumour I’ve heard is true, I’m amazed the ATSB and CASA are not concerned! Didn’t we learn the lessons from the Norfolk Island ditching about having a suitable alternate up our sleeve?
If the rumour I’ve heard is true, I’m amazed the ATSB and CASA are not concerned! Didn’t we learn the lessons from the Norfolk Island ditching about having a suitable alternate up our sleeve?
