Also the main door has inflatable door seal which when deflated was quite easy to see daylight through... |
Probably dumb question, will there be any attempt to raise it?
Or dive it? |
The FDR and CVR must surely be on the top of the list.
|
Sorry to burst your bubble Tempo, but as a person that lives here on Norfolk Island who watched all 3 missed approaches and listened to all the coms, and pretty well everything else, most people are right on the money with what has happened.
How about a bit more of a plug for the real hero's, being the Norfolk people who risked their lives by putting a fishing boat in the water a night with crap wx. Lucky for local knowledge! Just imagine if the pilot did communicate earlier knowing the circumstances and ask for a bit of "local" knowledge from some of seasoned aviators on island, he might have got in through the gap on 04. |
Very serious
Below is direct from CAO...
remote island means: (a) Christmas Island; or (b) Lord Howe Island; or (c) Norfolk Island. 2.3 The minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island is: (a) the minimum amount of fuel that the aeroplane should carry on that flight, according to the operations manual of the aeroplane’s operator, revised (if applicable) as directed by CASA to ensure that an adequate amount of fuel is carried on such flights; or (b) if the operations manual does not make provision for the calculation of that amount or has not been revised as directed by CASA — whichever of the amounts of fuel mentioned in paragraph 2.4 is the greater. 2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are: (a) the minimum amount of fuel that will, whatever the weather conditions, enable the aeroplane to fly, with all its engines operating, to the remote island and then from the remote island to the aerodrome that is, for that flight, the alternate aerodrome for the aircraft, together with any reserve fuel requirements for the aircraft; and Civil Aviation Order 82.0 5 (iii) to land at that aerodrome.(b) the minimum amount of fuel that would, if the failure of an engine or a loss of pressurisation were to occur during the flight, enable the aeroplane: (i) to fly to its destination aerodrome or to its alternate aerodrome for the flight; and (ii) to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 feet above that aerodrome under standard temperature conditions; and |
I doubt if there was a dispensation approval, but one never knows about "mates rates".
|
was writing cheques his body couldn't cash Metro FOs elsewhere earn more than a Pelair skipper, I'd hate to see what a Westwind wage would be := |
Ladies and Gents,
3A Conditions for passenger-carrying charter operations to remote Islands 3A.1 Each certificate authorising charter operations for the carriage of passengers is subject to the condition that an aeroplane operated under the certificate is to carry passengers on a flight to a remote island only if: (a) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and (b) the total amount of fuel carried by the aeroplane at the start of the flight is not less than the minimum safe fuel for the aeroplane for that flight; and (c) the alternate aerodrome for the aeroplane for that flight is not an aerodrome located on a remote island. Has anyone missed something here (hint: read the title) OK if you missed it the key words are passenger-carrying charter operations This flight was a medivac or air ambulance, therefore Aerial Work. Check the CASA website for Pel-Air AOC and you will find that they are approved for Aerial Work- Ambulance Functions- ISRAEL 1124 1124A. CAO 82 simply does not apply here, with regard to remote islands Like Keg and others have said, get off of their case, they and their pax are alive, and looks like Capt James and F/O Culpit did an amazing job. Let the investigation run its proper course. If the crew Pel-Air or CASA or others are subsequently found culpable, then let due process follow, but It is insulting that those without facts, just hype, media spin, bar room speculation and “knows someone who knows someone” can have such positive conclusions as to what definitely caused this accident. BTW if you are “knows someone who knows someone” you have a duty to be discussing it with either CASA or ATSB, certainly not here |
If the Charter rule does not apply as it was an Aerialwork operation, then I expect CASA might do what they did for the said departure without lights at LST - operating in a reckless manner or somesuch! just have to wait and see I guess. (the LST case goes back to court later this month - what is that 6 or so years after the event!!) The system (what system?) is beyond help.
|
Marauder, how much simpler aviation would be if we could just selectively use the bits of legislation and regulations that suit us on the day. You simply cannot read only bits of CAO 82 but in its entirety. You will find that the paragraph you've selected is complementary to the rest of the Order. The heading for paragraph 2.3 is: "The minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island is:" Don't see that it differentiates between types of operations but is all encompassing. Anyway, by your own words, it was an aerial work operation and therefore the charter paragraph you selected effectively invalidates your own argument .
CAO 82 most DEFINITELY applies. As to RAMROD's comment and also that of Norfolk Hawk - a bit of communication from the aircraft as to their plight might have resulted in the suggestion they ditch closer to the harbour and in an area where boats were waiting (or at least could get to quickly) rather than in an area unknown to potential searchers and rescuers who found them mainly because of luck which overcame the inadequate planning. |
Maurader
Think you may be wrong there in your statement. CAO 82 applies to Air Operators’ Certificates authorising aerial work operations, charter operations and regular public transport operations and sets out conditions to which such certificates are subject for the purposes of paragraph 28BA (1) (b) of the Act. AND then 2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are: (a) the minimum amount of fuel that will, whatever the weather conditions, enable the aeroplane to fly, with all its engines operating, to the remote island and then from the remote island to the aerodrome that is, for that flight, the alternate aerodrome for the aircraft, together with any reserve fuel requirements for the aircraft; and etc etc Your 3A is just a further restriction to that above which applies to pax carrying CHT operations, that being the alternate cant be another remote island and cant be a single engine aircraft. So it appears that you still need a alternate even for AWK travel to a remote island. edit (Zanzibar, you beat me by mere minutes) |
CAO 82 simply does not apply here, with regard to remote islands As said before, the "minimum safe fuel" is determined by 82.0.2.3. Stand to be corrected. Edit and I'm dragging the chain in response. |
Thanks Brian, but i think the genie is out of the bottle.
Regarding selective use of regs, of course you can, CASA have been doing for years. |
Sorry guys slight thread drift but...
Does anyone have the legal definition of a "Remote Island" ? (obviously the ones stated in CAO 82, but how is it defined) Very relevant when it comes to looking at alternates out there. (IE why is Noumea etc not remote and able to be used as an alternate?). SRU |
Does anyone have the legal definition of a "Remote Island" |
Marauder, according to your public profile, "Location:ere today, gone tommorrow
Occupation:Redneck" ;does not indicate if you are a pilot. If you are in fact a pilot, would you operate a flight to a remote island without an alternate with sufficient fuel?:confused: |
Brian, here is the guts of it, but I am as guilty as those I am accusing, selective posting and quoting ( to save bandwidth and sore fingers), but read and re read the whole lot and you will find that it applies to pax charter only, not legitimate Aerial Work
3A Conditions for passenger-carrying charter operations to remote islands. etc etc etc Yeh its a loophole, but at the end of the day, it is all that counts |
Marauder,
You are right about 3A not applying to AWK operations but you seem to conveniently not apply 2.4 which does. Both 2.4 ad 3A require an alternate for remote island operations (unless there is a approved ops manual that provides differently). Sorry, cant see your loophole at all. |
It's interesting sitting here watching everyone giving there expert opinions with the benefit of hindsight and without the operational pressures the crew were under at the time.
Regardless of what we may think or how we think we may have done things different from an operational and planning point of view, I think Dom deserves some praise and credit for making what has to be one of the most difficult command decisions any aircraft would ever want to have to make. I wonder how many of you, put in the same situation, would have had the courage to make the ultimate command decision and ditch the aircraft. I think there would be some of you who would have continued the approach below minimas and tried to land (with probably disastrous results), and probably a similar number of you who would have flown the aircraft until it simply ran out of fuel, because you wouldn't have had the courage to make the command decision that this crew did. Should we not be learning and reflecting more on Command Decision making (more so, some of our own) as opposed to critizising the crew. |
mattgitau
I can see that you are a supporter of the pilot in question, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, however, whilst you say the pilot made a difficult command decision, why didnt he make the decision to warn the passengers of an impending ditching.I would have thought that it would be the minimum that should occur if the ditching was planned. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.