I find it amazing that Pilots and operators don't read the manufacturers ops manual!:ugh:

Oh wise one... . . . let's see your precis. And how you justify/defend the boss's word and policy before the maker's.

j3pipercub,

Could you please point me to the part of the Ausjet Ops Manual that directs you to run a tank dry on T/O ?, are you sure your friend is without blame ?.

"Yep, peanut. With a fuel policy like that Ausjet are lucky it hasn't happened before"

Yeh I wonder why it hasn't happened before, peanut.

Admit it, she made a mistake, there is no shame in that.

"Interesting to see how they changed their fuel policy after the ditching,, an admission of fault if I ever heard of one"

Oh stop it, you're making me blush with embarrasment, for you.

Carry on like yours is childish and transparent, perhaps you need to re-read the last five pages of posts and see how many here were on the money from the very start, if you have any real substance you'll then apologise.

There are very few new mistakes.

Fantome,

Sorry, not being a smart ar*e but can you please re-phrase the question, I don't understand itm

SGD,

Sorry, completely lacking in substance hence my carry on. Mind you if you bothered to read the report
the introduction it states there is no single person/factor to blame. Seeing as fantome decided to start the blame game I decided I'd join in too, so he wasn't playing with himself, I mean BY himself, presenting other factors in the argument.

Also, don't have the manual, but I could probably get a copy.

The question remains though why have an SOP contrary to a POH. Why? And then why amend it following the ditching?

The simple fact that it was amended after shows culpability on the part of the company

And why are you blushing?

j3

Apology accepted. Thank you. Unable to rephrase what is simply curiosity about justification for what seems at the very heart of the problem poor systems knowledge. ( Blame? Often only the culpable think they are being 'blamed').

"The question remains though why have an SOP contrary to a POH. Why? And then why amend it following the ditching?"

How many Ops Manuals have you read ?, how many CASA folk have you dealt with ?.

In many many Ops Manuals there are items that are different to the POH, does not make them illegal, it just needs to be justifiable.

Amend it following the ditching, well because for the many many years leading up to this incident, no one else previously ran out of fuel shortly after take off at Brampton Island, there was this incident and CASA probably reacted, by making the organisation try something else.

At some point some CASA FOI (experienced Pilot no doubt) had previously signed off on this procedure as acceptable.

So why did it happen on this occasion ?, simple, because the fuel selector was selected to an empty tank, why, well if it was a cultural or Ops Manual problem, it have happened before this fated flight.

"there is no single person/factor to blame", two , 1) who trained her, did they teach her what she needed to know, 2) did she follow the training and SOPs.........., IMHO definately did not do No 2.

Blushing, well I find it hard to believe you are unable to see the facts, an aeroplane landed in the water, due to fuel exhaustion, yet there was lots of fuel onboard.

Yet landing on the water dead stick in a PA32 was not a SOP and the aircraft was mechanically servicable........if you can't see that, I'll not waste anymore time talking to the impared.

Not terribly bright are you ?, defamation is a nasty creature, did you watch Mr Smith V TACAN recently, you better hope no one from Ausjet gets their panties in a knot over your statements.

Apart from your jaded opinion, which I believe is driven from some loyality to the individual Pilot, that was a lightweight response. No monday quarterbacks etc etc, the ATSB has spoken, read very carefully what they have written, they are not in the business of making enemys or appointing blame directly, just the facts, as detailed within the earlier post:

No fuel in cylinder = no noise.

The company name may have changed a few times but a Cherokee 6 has been flogging to and from Brampton Island for more than 10 years with the fuel police in the Ausjet ops manual. One fuel starvation ditching in 10 years, don't think the policy is the problem.

About 20 litres was kept in each main tank which works out to be your fixed reserve. Why keep fixed reserve in the mains? So each tank always has enough fuel in it to get you safely airborne if you mistakenly select the wrong tank for takeoff. Run a tip dry select a main and you will always have about 20 minutes of fuel to get yourself sorted out.

Short distance, multi sector days with short turn arounds in an aircraft with 4 fuel tanks requires careful fuel tank management. Don't rush,record fuel remaining in EACH tank on the fuel log(not just the total) and visually confirm fuel remaining in each tank on every turn around.

Just a simple lad......... and about to own two tanks and two tips......... would it not be easier to mangae two mains well than juggle 4 smaller quantities? This leaving the tips for use on long haul work?

J:ok:

Jab

Each type is different read the AFM for each type you fly. Read post #46 this should explain why you cant only use the mains on the PA32.

Most other types using the mains only ,as you suggest, is quite acceptable.

It depends on how many other fuel starvations occured - especially if there were other fuel starvation accidents.

The last paragraph of post #87 is excellent advice.

I can't work out table 1 in the report - I think it suggests that the aircraft should have used 30l between YBMK and YBPI and 0l fuel between YBPI & YBHM. Is it me or the ATSB that can't add up?

The report states that an unsecured bag created major problems for one of the pax - they had difficulty undoing their seat belt and had difficulty getting out of the aircraft because of this bag and they were the only person on board to have a bone fractured. A reminder of the importance of securing baggage.

Just out of interest what is the recommended flap setting for a ditching in a PA-32? More flap equals slower stall speed and a lower pitch angle on ditching. The fact that the aircraft remained floating upright for a few minutes and allowed everyone to evacuate the aircraft suggests that a flapless ditching in those conditions works OK.

:ouch: FWIW I'd be looking at fuel contamination....water in the tanks.

I see men in Gowns. I see a Civil Jury, I see lots of cash!

No one on earth would get on an a/c with what is basically 2 jerry cans of fuel available.

Demonstrate to me that that is enough fuel to deal with an Emergency.

Case closed. How much do you want Mr/Mrs Pax!

Fuel contamination is highly possible as the result of the ditching. :oh::oh::oh: :E