|
A touch of topic but a reply to Anthill's who made mention of a previous NLK incident....
Anthill, with regards to the Ozjet NLK incident you mention, the OJ 737 diverted from NLK and landed at the planned alternate (NOU) with statutory reserves, even with the problems the aircraft carried. OJ always planned, and always dispatched, to NLK with fuel to go elsewhere no matter how good the TAF was, be it AKL, NOU, BNE, OOL, SYD etc, etc. |
The Australian internet news has a sound link with one of the 'rescuers' from Norfolk.
Verrry interesting indeed. |
IF
Just running this up the flagpole. If the Wx enroute via NF was dodgy, wouldn't tracking via Nandi then Noumea be more prudent given the availability of better navaids? Keen to hear other's thoughts not bagging the crew concerned. Are there reasons why you wouldn't consider that scenario?
|
"ditching plane at sea"......... where else ? I'm not sure how you can be called a hero for causing your own ditching, at least Sully had a good excuse! These guys ditched a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, simply because they ran out of fuel. Hardly hero activity. What kind of fuel planning is that?:ugh: |
ABC Radio
John Sharp (former Federal Transport Minister, and now CEO of PelAir) interviewed on ABC radio this afternoon. Paraphrased comments because I had both hands on the wheel, and my jaw in my lap:
"...the company are now conducting an investigation and expect to change their company flight planning policy so that a point of no return (PNR) is calculated before flight...":eek: They are not my words...they are his!:rolleyes::rolleyes: Despite the obvious causal factors, and underlying factors, that have appeared to cause this accident, it is still be prudent to wait for the facts and read the ATSB report, before hanging the poor bastard. The G PS: Congrats for not killing anyone. |
A Westwind, in the dark, and everybody got out. I don't care if or what kind of mistakes he may or may not have made prior.
That is amazing skill (or luck beyond comprehension). |
These guys ditched a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, simply because they ran out of fuel. Hardly hero activity. What kind of fuel planning is that? Talk about a bunch of gossiping girls! It's embarrassing! |
I agree aussie027. It was not "normal circumstances"
|
OMFG!
No PNR required? How did they get/keep an AOC let alone an aeromed contract specialising in long distance retrievals?
|
Ahhh Billy sex crime,
Yes I have seen a life raft all bagged up, and have intimate knowledge of the westwind too, and the rafts that pelair use for that matter! I assure you every time I did a trip it would fit in the cabin. and if it wouldnt I would make room for it,(it never had to sit in the aisle) with all the overwater flying pelair does the life raft was very important and I always wanted it to be the first thing thrown out the door should we need to ditch, Luckily I never needed to use it but I assure you before ditching I would have had the lanyard attached to the base of the front chair and the raft secured there too so it would be ready to go. a ditching should be a planned procedure when needed and things like life jackets and life raft positioning before the final approach to ditch are very important. flying the procedure is only a very small part of ditching And no you cant access the baggage compartment from the cabin, which is why I couldn't believe they would put it in there. |
History repeats itself......
Very interesting Read.... ATSB RECOMMENDATION : R20000040 Recommendation. Recommendation issued to: Bureau Of Meteorology. 22 February 2000. SUBJECT - RELIABILITY OF NORFOLK ISLAND FORECASTS. SAFETY DEFICIENCY. The meteorological forecasts for Norfolk Island are not sufficiently reliable on some occasions to prevent pilots having to carry out unplanned ... At website http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...r20000040.aspx |
even if he had the 2 hours island holding BS in lieu of an alternate that may be allowed under the the company SOP's NLK is not the place to apply this rule.The METAR's that existed that night can last for days at a time.
|
http://http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pl...land-ditching/
Let’s get real about the Norfolk Island ditching November 19, 2009 – 8:34 pm, by Ben Sandilands Last night’s ditching of a Pel-Air CareFlight medivac Westwind jet is being turned into a media circus by the airline and some very susceptible reporters. First reported in the Crikey subscriber email today, the incident which left six people, half of them without life jackets, in the sea for at least 60 minutes awaiting rescue after their jet ran out of fuel, has even been compared to the actions of heroic Captain Chesley Sullenberger in landing the US Airways A320 on the Hudson River last January. What a load of weak minded idiotic drivel. And John Sharp, a former aviation minister, put up this ridiculous statement this morning as chairman of Pel-Air Aviation, which is owned by REX, the regional carrier. John Sharp, Chairman of Pel-Air Aviation said that he was very proud of the Captain and the First Officer. “They performed an intricate landing on water in darkness resulting in the evacuation of everyone safely and quickly. The training of both the Pel-Air and CareFlight crew came to the fore as everyone kept together and remained calm. Their professionalism stood out on the day and made a substantial difference to the outcome.” The nonsense words we have highlighted are ‘very proud’ and ‘professionalism’. The pilot, Captain Dominic James, ditched a plane carrying passengers in the sea in the dark because he ran out of fuel. That isn’t professionalism. Where exactly is the professionalism in Pel-Air when it operates a flight that is inadequately fuelled for a worst case diversion, such as depressurisation, or a closed airport, and has no where to go but into the drink, instead of having the juice to divert to the nearest airport in New Zealand or New Caledonia. For John Sharp to say he is ‘very proud’ of this situation suggests he has forgotten everything he ever knew about aviation and flight standards, or has no knowledge of or respect for the regulations as set out later in this post. On the ABC tonight Sharp says there was no Plan B if the weather turned nasty.But the weather had been nasty for quite some time on Norfolk island yesterday. One of the principles of safe airline operation is to always have a Plan B, and the fuel to carry it out. If it turns out that this flight was operated in accordance with the companies operating manual, which is one of the requirements of its AOC or air operator certificate, then CASA is in serious trouble for lack of diligence in approving it. It the flight wasn’t carried out in accordance with the regulations CASA must surely serve a show cause notice in relation to the potential cancellation of its AOC and prosecute the owners and board of the company, who have very serious responsibilities in aviation law. And even if the conduct of the flight met the conditions required by the company, what sort of a company are we dealing with when this sort of crash is, as Sharp’s comment imply, a consequence of deliberately flying with only a Plan A? Here is the relevant extract from the regulation CAO 82.0 concerning the Pel-Air flight: 1 Application 1.1 This Part 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… and: remote island means: (a) Christmas Island; or (b) Lord Howe Island; or (c) Norfolk Island. and: 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 reservefuel requirements for the aircraft; and (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 (iii) to land at that aerodrome. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestion: CASA should act immediately in relation to these prima facie violations of CAO 82.0 (subsection 2.4) and prosecute the owners and board of the airline for multiple offences. CASA should also conduct a full audit and review of every aspect of Pel-Air’s operations and its fitness to hold its AOC, with particular regard to its fuel reserve policies. |
How about a bit of kudos being thrown his way boys and girls?:D
Noboby knows what the circumstances behind the ditching are. Jeez.....there are some real pieces of work on this thread.:ugh: |
I can't watch any more telly, the 'Hero' thing is killing me! John Sharp should face the music, and step down. Pollies (even ex) can spin better than a chipmunk, and once the truth is revealed, the public will have lost interest and moved on. Poor RFDS, meet your enemy! Unscrupulous, uncaring, uncompliant, unstoppable.:ugh:
|
Everyday I operate in an environment where the only constant is change, I go to work with that in mind and ensure that I never have my back to the wall. You operate into that environment you always have an escape.
There are serious flaws in this, maybe we can learn from the reason model. Mr. Sharp has no doubt utilised his media contacts to put a different spin on this, but it is quite possible the buck could end up with him after the investigation. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not a requirement for you to carry an alternate for NLK now, no matter what the TAF says.
From memory this was done/changed in 1999 or early 2000, that's why all the commercial piston operators stopped flying there back then because they couldn't carry the gas. From what we were led to believe you were not allowed to plan to a PNR for NLK, you needed fuel for an alternate. |
Oh man!, no plan B!
Who has no plan B!!!! Who admits there was no plan B to the press?????? What is going on?????????????? There is going to be some battered ego's by the time this one plays out.... |
I worked for Pelair for years and you always had to carry min fuel where ever you went, the uplift was the main priority.The crew did a great job and should be praised, but Pelair need to be investigated.
|
GADRIVR - kudos where it is due for sure, however:
Having operated Norfolk, Noumea, Auckland - remote location, poor WX reported - Always carry ALT (see Crikey CAO ref) and divert before eating into ALT Fuel. F28 had to turn back before TOD if wx was close to Min. 3 approaches before diverting is ridiculous in this part of world. If the pax can tread water for 60 - 90 mins, they can't be that sick - so shouldn't be a mercy flight as suggested earlier.:suspect: Only 3 wearing jackets - that isn't a well prepared ditching. But this is all speculation, and importantly, with the pedigree of the CEO, I suggest CASA will have difficulty prosecuting the matter fully:E |
Anyone know the rego please?
Di |
So what do we know?
The aircraft flew to a remote Island, carried out three approaches, then ditched. Island reserve should at least be two hours - which should be more than three approaches, and they should have had variable and fixed reserve on top of that. The interview with the Airport Manager, who rescued them from the sea stated that they had no idea at what time they ditched, or where they were. He stated that they were found in the water about and hour and a half after the accident, by one of the boat crew managing to catch sight of a life jacket emergency light bobbing about about two kilometres off shore. Only three of the six were wearing life jackets - the two pilots, and the patient were the ones who had to go without. So - if there isn't a question or two in that lot, I don't know what else people need! You have to at least question how "prepared" this ditching was! :hmm: |
To those involved, we are glad to hear you are OK, well done.
The experts will investigate for many months, anything else is school yard speculation and has no place here. |
Checkboard, re "prepared ditching"...
Would it not be unreasonable to presume that whilst trying to 'get under' the weather and then pop it up onto NLKs runway, that the aircraft may have impacted the water; thus not quite being a 'prepared ditching' ? ? ? Whilst it is being a bit speculative, the reliable reports of only 50% of the occupants wearing lifejackets and no raft deployed do throw a few interesting questions to the mix. Whatever has happened, it is good that all occupants got out alive and are ok. Could have been worse, thankful that it isnt. Have they left the Island, and if so, who with?? |
Have they left the Island, and if so, who with? |
The experts will investigate for many months, anything else is school yard speculation and has no place here. The provisions of CAO 82.0 relating to "Remote Islands" were created specifically to prevent this sort of event from happening. The forecast weather conditions at the island do not come into the planning requirements of the CAO. It applies "whatever the weather conditions" Simply, there should be enough fuel to fly from the departure point to Norfolk and onto an alternate that is not itself located on a remote island. |
Questions
Tio,
anything else is school yard speculation and has no place here Having listened to the Airport Manager's interview, I agree with Checkboard - they were either the longest approaches ever made to NLK or he didn't have the 2 hrs reserves. Another aspect that puzzles me is that if he had time to shoot 3 approaches, why didn't he take time to brief those on the island what his intentions were? After all, they're the ones who would come out to get him. Finally, for such a long overwater flight, I'd have made damn sure I had my lifejacket within arms reach (if not on) - that goes for the rest of the crew & pax too. No good having them in the back - it's like fuel in the bowser. There's no doubt he made the very best of a bad situation - keeping the pax together etc. But how did he end up in that situation to begin with? Was it Pel-Air's SOPs that let him down, px from base (perceived or otherwise), was it other outside agencies giving him duff gen or was it his command decisions? Any of which will provide learning points for all of us. I await the ATSB report with keen interest. Edited addition: The Airport Manager also mentioned they did not hear a MayDay call. How planned was the ditching? |
Well, I for one would still like to know why he ran out of fuel...
|
He'll get straight into QF now.
|
Kudos to the Careflight Crew
I think you will find it is the careflight crew that kept the passengers together not the pelair crew, and the survival training that Careflight crew are given in regard to water survival, rotating the survivors through the middle to keep body temperatures up. Maybe if pelair manage to keep the medivac contract they will now send their crew for water survival training........ but I doubt it
As for 3 approaches, my rumor mill (its a good sources) tells me more like 5 approaches before ditching. I have always lived by the rule give it a second go then head off, unless you have a very good reason for doing the 3rd attempt but no more than 3, its funny because I learnt that rule at pelair. for the comment about accidental ditching trying to get below the cloud and pop up onto Norfolk from beneath the hills, you do realise it was at night with and overcast cloud base dont you, if thats how it happened the aircrew should be grounded for ever. Out of all this the real heros, that no one has mentioned are the poor careflight crew who have been thrust into this situation, most probably did most of the work in the evacuation of the aircraft and kept the patient alive for 90 minutes in the water, and kept everyones body temperature reduction to a minimum. Great work guys, you deserve an award for your efforts and an apology for being put in this situation through no fault of your own. you are the true stars of this horrible situation. Once again good work careflight crew you guys are the unsung heros once again As for the comment about min fuel being carried, that was the freight fleet not the medivac Westwind fleet, going to the pacific you always carried as much fuel as you decided you wanted, in any case min fuel would have been full fuel which should have given NWWW as an alternate! |
I have a quick question...anyone can answer..
Firstly well done to the crew for performing so well in the face of adversity... BUT why is it that Mr Sharp finds it necessary to praise the actions of the pilot after a suspected double flame out due to fuel exhaustion, my understanding is that there were 3 MApp's. but not sure. And at the same time Rex find it appropriate to silently crucify their own crew after every incident no matter what the outcome (usually a good one).:ugh: hmmmmmm.....sounds like someones in damage control ???????????????????? And personally I couldnt give a rats if the guy was Cleo whatever of the year....DONT STRAY FROM THE REAL ISSUE HERE....fuel exhaustion !! |
Well, I for one would still like to know why he ran out of fuel... In the meantime the successful ditching is a matter of public record. |
A fuel leak for example "We" are not driving a car down the road, and when we endup without fuel we call the........ "We" (normally) do not continue flying untill our tanks dried up! "We" always (should) have a plan B or even C! Calling this socalled Capt a "Hero" is b.s. He AND his crew scr...up! Lucky all survived!! |
A real hero would have landed the aircrafton the first attempt.
I must be the greatest hero ever as i have never run out of fuel and have thus far never had to land anywhere but on a runway. |
Why did the aircraft arrive at NLK (at night) without an alternate?
|
The online media seem to have gone very quiet on this. Nothing on the front pages of SMH, news.com.au or ninemsn.
Maybe they've realised it's best to sit and wait and see how they ended up in that predicament in the first place before any more 'hero' claims. |
Wonder whether this incident will affect PelAir's future air ambulance contract in Victoria or has that contract been signed and sealed?
|
Speculation
Capt K,
Any info fm your sources as to what they think happened? Not enugh fuel loaded at origin, fuel leak, mechanical/electric problem with fuel pumps?? Before I get howled down, can I say that I'm very aware of the investigation process and presumption of innocence etc. I'm just trying to get my head around how an aircraft on such an important task can end up ditching at night in rough seas due to fuel starvation and for the airfield staff not to know about a planned ditch. I say planned because it wasn't the result of catastrophic failure so he had time to at least get a mayday out. :confused: |
Mercy Flight
There has been talk here of a mercy flight - can anyone confirm that it was (or wasn't) a declared mercy flight?
Anyone had any luck finding the TAFs for the period? UTR |
Anyone had any luck finding the TAFs for the period? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:56. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.