VH-LBY Skippers C-441
I’m a little perplexed as to exactly what’s 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 wasn’t 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 let’s wait and see what the final report brings.
Fact of the matter is that the pilot identified that he/she wasn’t 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 let’s wait and see what the final report brings.
[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.
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.
I’m a little perplexed as to exactly what’s 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 wasn’t 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 let’s wait and see what the final report brings.
Fact of the matter is that the pilot identified that he/she wasn’t 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 let’s wait and see what the final report brings.
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 let’s wait and see what the final report brings - This was mentioned often in the first thread, as was it ran out of fuel!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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 don’t understand what’s 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.
The result could have been a lot worse, particularly in the environment where the incident occurred.
Anyway, I don’t understand what’s 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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... 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.
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.
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?
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?
But supply a link that it needs to be deliberately shut down, love to see it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 14:24.