The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

VH-LBY Skippers C-441

Old 13th May 2018, 08:00
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 910
Iím a little perplexed as to exactly whatís being debated about on this public forum in relation to the incident, lots of armchair experts making a lot of assumptions.

Fact of the matter is that the pilot identified that he/she wasnít happy with the fuel quantity on board the aircraft and made very good decision to do something about it which resulted in an excellent outcome - case closed if you had no business in the operation. Let the authorities do their job and letís wait and see what the final report brings.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 08:41
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 395
[QUOTE=FGD135;10145354]Bend alot,

Your claim that:
Seems to be based on your assumption that the words "unscheduled engine shutdown" apply in this case. To my reading, they do not. An engine running out of fuel is not a major defect.

QUOTE]

The engine was scheduled to be running on arrival in Broome - that did not go to the schedule and one of them decided it would just stop!

Now that is a pretty clear case of "unscheduled engine shutdown" and CAsA class that as a Major Defect - if you are unsure call the number and ask them or use the email so you can share the reply.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 08:46
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
Iím a little perplexed as to exactly whatís being debated about on this public forum in relation to the incident, lots of armchair experts making a lot of assumptions.

Fact of the matter is that the pilot identified that he/she wasnít happy with the fuel quantity on board the aircraft and made very good decision to do something about it which resulted in an excellent outcome - case closed if you had no business in the operation. Let the authorities do their job and letís wait and see what the final report brings.
When the engine/s stopped it was decided - there was no decision to be made!

The pilot made a great choice of where to land and a great job of the landing.
The outcome was excellent.

Let the authorities do their job and letís wait and see what the final report brings - This was mentioned often in the first thread, as was it ran out of fuel!
Bend alot is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 09:02
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 659
Bend alot,

I think you will find that "unscheduled engine shutdown" is to be read as the shutting down of an engine, by way of a deliberate act from the pilot, at a time earlier than that at which the engine would normally be shut down.

To interpret it the way you wish to requires an instance of fuel exhaustion to be considered a major defect. Does that sound logical to you?
FGD135 is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 09:06
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 910
As I stated, the pilot made a good (forced) decision to land and the outcome was excellent.

The result could have been a lot worse, particularly in the environment where the incident occurred.

Anyway, I donít understand whatís going to be achieved by people throwing their opinionated expert (or just rubbish) views on this forum. Remember that there are some trawlers who look at this website for all the WRONG reasons.

One thing that I do know is that I wasting my time typing these words.

At least show some respect and dignity for the pilot involved.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 09:10
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted by FGD135 View Post
Bend alot,

Your claim that:
Seems to be based on your assumption that the words "unscheduled engine shutdown" apply in this case. To my reading, they do not. An engine running out of fuel is not a major defect. You also seem to believe that a "mayday" also somehow requires a MR entry. That is not the case. I suggest that your "cover up" does not actually exist.

Ixixly,

You seem to have the idea that there were two pilots on the Conquest - which seems to make the likelihood of fuel exhaustion so much more unfathomable to you. That operation is normally flown by one pilot. Where did you get the idea of two pilots from?
FGD, Someone mentioned talking to an FO in the previous thread which lead me to believe there was 2 crew on board but I'm happy to be corrected there as it's not really stated anywhere in particular if it was 1 or 2 crew. I don't dispute the fact that it was Fuel Exhaustion just to be clear, that part is cut and dry, I'm personally thinking it will be a few different factors that went into the part where it all went very quiet rather than any one particular reason, basing that on the fact that they specifically mention Fuel Contamination and water being found, they're looking particularly into the Fuel Indication System and Fuel system component serviceability as well so seems from the report so far that they're looking into a few different areas that wouldn't really be necessary if the Pilot simply had tried to take off with Low Fuel hoping for favourable tail winds, also the fact that someone mentions a Pilot was let go but is flying for another Operator now which says to me they aren't grounded by CASA which you'd think would have been done if they suspected negligence in the form of taking off without enough fuel.
Ixixly is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 09:24
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 659
... Pilot was let go but is flying for another Operator now which says to me they aren't grounded by CASA which you'd think would have been done if they suspected negligence in the form of taking off without enough fuel.
CASA would need to wait for the investigation to be complete before revoking his licence. The possible negligence may still be in play.
FGD135 is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 09:30
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Perth, WA
Age: 59
Posts: 6
If I speculate correctly do I win a cupie doll?
sagesau is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 10:00
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted by FGD135 View Post
CASA would need to wait for the investigation to be complete before revoking his licence. The possible negligence may still be in play.
FGD, that is true, I can't remember but what happened with the Pel-Air Ditching case? Not on the same level as this one but I honestly can't remember if they revoked the PICs Licence or perhaps suspended his right to use it or not and it's the first case that comes to mind that is anywhere close to this.
Ixixly is offline  
Old 13th May 2018, 10:18
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by FGD135 View Post
Bend alot,

I think you will find that "unscheduled engine shutdown" is to be read as the shutting down of an engine, by way of a deliberate act from the pilot, at a time earlier than that at which the engine would normally be shut down.

To interpret it the way you wish to requires an instance of fuel exhaustion to be considered a major defect. Does that sound logical to you?
Fine - the pilot shut one down deliberately due surge (prior to landing at Broome), the other shut itself down also prior to Broome.

But supply a link that it needs to be deliberately shut down, love to see it.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 15th May 2018, 23:32
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Perth
Posts: 32
Exactly what I said in the original post. ZERO singing syrup! Water means nothing, we find water in the wings everyday along with microbial growth.
Badengo is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 01:33
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Up the Creek without a paddle...
Posts: 294
Where is this video of taxiing out of HLC with the low fuel light illuminated? I keep hearing about it but it would be good to see it. If this was the case, bad airmanship aside, surely this is against the Skippers SOPs? From what I know, the low fuel light is a separate system to the fuel gauges and activated by a float between 150-250lbs. So even if the gauges were overreading, surely the low fuel light would be enough to make you think twice about moving?
Pilotette is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 05:29
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,158
Pilotette, it was Horatio who mentioned the video, adds a bit of credence to it for me coming from him
Ixixly is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 05:59
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Up the Creek without a paddle...
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by Ixixly View Post
Pilotette, it was Horatio who mentioned the video, adds a bit of credence to it for me coming from him
Yeah for sure and Iíve heard it from other sources too, apparently it was on Youtube but I havenít been able to find it. Iím not really a Youtube user generally though.
Pilotette is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 14:13
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 87
I'll repost my cryptic clue in a previous post that nobody previously picked up on:
Holy maleficent mycelium, Batman!
AbsoluteFokker is offline  
Old 16th May 2018, 21:00
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Badengo View Post
Exactly what I said in the original post. ZERO singing syrup! Water means nothing, we find water in the wings everyday along with microbial growth.
It is the water held in suspension, not necessarily free water, that affects capacitance type fuel sender units.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 04:55
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,158
Interesting suggestion there AbsoluteFokker, that would be a heck of a growth would it not? Is this you postulating based on other incidents or is this something you've heard come out during this particular investigation?
Ixixly is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 04:58
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 279
I can't remember the numbers, but I've flown types where the manufacturer has specified minimum fuel level required for flight. The figure stated was less than the fuel required to trigger the "Fuel Level Low" warning captions.
The point being, so long as that figure equated to flight fuel plus reserves, you could very well end up in a situation where the caution lights are on and still be legal, compliant etc.
717tech is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 07:55
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Up the Creek without a paddle...
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by 717tech View Post
I can't remember the numbers, but I've flown types where the manufacturer has specified minimum fuel level required for flight. The figure stated was less than the fuel required to trigger the "Fuel Level Low" warning captions.
The point being, so long as that figure equated to flight fuel plus reserves, you could very well end up in a situation where the caution lights are on and still be legal, compliant etc.
True. I believe for the Conquest that itís 208lbs/side.
Pilotette is offline  
Old 17th May 2018, 14:13
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Ixixly View Post
Interesting suggestion there AbsoluteFokker, that would be a heck of a growth would it not? Is this you postulating based on other incidents or is this something you've heard come out during this particular investigation?
Yes - it's a heck of a growth. Only what I hear third-hand about this incident. Not directly corroborated, so is it's still rumour until we see the report. Apparently an isolated fungal incident, and therefore rather unexpected, but given the severity of the outcome (total power loss) I'm sure there'll be some additional checks recommended by ATSB for Jet-A1 aircraft in the tropics.

From my own perspective on previous posts to this thread: If crew ignored any fuel warning lights either because they were instructed/suggested to do so and didn't write it up in the MR then that's a cause for concern, but, again, might not indicative of a company-wide issue at all.

I've owned aircarft with certain characteristics that might seem abnormal to others (e.g. nose wheel/tail wheel shimmy, especially at higher-than-normal ground speeds) but not enough to write up on a MR, so it's a fine line.

Maybe one day we'll have a pilots-and-engineers-only "gripe sheet" for issues that the pilot doesn't think warrant an MR entry (the PIC may be wrong on this) but at least it can get reviewed. Swiss cheese and all that. Might save a job or two as well.

Last edited by AbsoluteFokker; 17th May 2018 at 15:24.
AbsoluteFokker 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.