........sure will be interesting reading when the report comes out...........in Ch 9's TV BS!!! Already Ch 9 have started to paint a 'hollywood' story from it to milk it for all it's worth:ugh: Cloe Bachelor hero pilot is now the leading headline !! FFS!




Wmk2

Could be lots of issues here, especially planning considerations. That said, well done to the Captain for deciding on a gutsy plan and carrying it out successfully. Must have been awful tense after the 3rd missed approach !

Gee, Mmmm. Sometimes you can only plan for 1 approach. From experience Norfolk and LHI can mean you only get one chance then off to the mainland or other alternate. Fuel critical situations can be very testing. Our remote islands are the only time we have ever needed CP and PNR calcs.

I take it there is no precision app. aid at Norfolk?

Tinpis, no there isn't and its up on top of a cliff too, so very condusive to fog and cloud. AKL is the normal alternate carried for a jet.
Once I came in from Tahiti into there and could not descend and preserve my AKL alternate until VFR was confirmed from the FSU. The weather there can turn bad fast when Temp and dew point is close together.

Pleased to hear all walked away.

For those interested, just a few hours earlier, a RAAF 737 carrying the Governor-General had to divert back to Sydney, after not being able to land in Norfolk Island due to the bad weather conditions..

G-G's plane aborts landing, turns back | National Breaking News | News.com.au

Wonder What Official Report Will Say?
 

Most poster are correct - NLK can go down to the MNM irrespective of the TTF.

However, to make 3 (alleged) approaches (all unsuccessful) to NLK and (assumedly) burning ALTN fuel resulting in:
a. a zero option approach (3rd attempt = must land);
b. a ditching, however successful (result of zero option approach);
c. a allusion of "hero" status.

Facts: unsuccessful approaches (3); controlled aircraft ditching due exhaustion of contingencies/fuel.

Forget "stress" and subjective mitigators; to reiterate - min fuel = min options; zero fuel = zero options.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE?

Doesn't surprise me that the media are using the Cleo Bachelor thing.

Media outlets will try to differeniate themselves from each other and find an exclusive angle on a story. This sometimes just adds to the dumbing down and sensationalising of stories which in Aviation i always hate to see. Now i'll proberly have to field questions from punters about ditching, if i knew him and if i have applied to Cleo.

I wonder, if we had adopted the FAA requirements some 15 years ago when regulatory reform began, whether this accident would have been prevented.

Requirement to carry an alternate:

1 hour before to 1 hour after ETA-

Vis <2sm (3.2km)
cig <3000ft

The FAA also does not allow charter or RPT aircraft to attempt an instrument approach unless the Wx is reporting above the landing minimums at the time of the intended approach.

If we had this rule in operation here, would the decision to divert to Noumea have been made well in advance of the first approach attempt?

Weapons Hot,

I think we agree on the picture.

So far REX share price pretty much unaffected from yesterdays close.

Is this the same guy that was a SO with Qantas for a short time?

It'll be an interesting report, never been there but flown plenty around the Pacific a few years back, standard fuel for no alternate was 2 hrs island reserve.

and they are throwing in:

In reply to MJBow2, from memory it is stated in the CAR's (just escapes me where rite now), that an instrument approach shall not be commenced unless conditions are above landing minima....... it's one of those regs that you can never find it when your looking for it! :hmm:

Ahh but there is a precision approach at SNF!
...too bad no-one has the equipment to do SCAT approaches though...

Ask them how many life jackets they had on board.

Weapons_Hot, mate exactly what I was thinking. The report im sure will explain alot but I also have to ask:

1. There may have been panic, but why did only 3 people have life jackets?
2. The flight must have had a PNR and CP so if he got current weather at that time and saw the weather was OVC002 why did he not divert?

But on a positive note...my hat off to the pilot for ditching safely at night with it overcast meaning no moonlight.

Thank goodness no one was seriously hurt.

So, let's get this straight - they set up for a controlled ditching, but only three of them had time to get their lifejackets on?

What about the dinghy packs also carried?

Don't get me wrong - glad all worked out well; but as for 'well trained, and professional'....

I remember some years ago picking up a Westwind for an overwater flight and for some reason checking the lifejacket situation.....none found!

Looks like Pelair have again proven they deserve their 'reputation'.

Is that the same John Sharp, originally Qantas, then CEO Air Pacific and General Manager, TAA, immediately prior to TAA amalgamation with Qantas??

Hats off to the crew for the successful ditching.

However, just because the operation was "legal" does not make it safe, as has been demonstrated in this case. "Island hold" or whatever they call it is not on IMHO. Like playing Russian roulette. "On route alternates" or a decision at the PNR/Cps are another one, I will not entertain.

I don't give a damn what the bean counters think but to me "fuel in the tanks is money in the bank."

It is not a crime to have an accident but to run out of fuel, whatever the reason, is criminal. I hope someone can come up with a good reason why this "incident" came to be.