|
Agree with PLovett re the thread having gone about as far as it needs to. Disagree re 'speculation' (and the gentlemen thing.... sorry gals). ATBS reports state with certainty what they KNOW with certainly... it's part of their remit to make their case (read the Analysis section of their reports). Where they have no recourse other than to speculate (use of words such as 'likely', 'probably', etc) then that is made clear too.
I think the reporting into this incident conveys more certainty than speculation. The pilot will have one last opportunity (potentially) to influence how he looks--emerging from this incident--and perhaps even to acquire a degree of self-satisfaction. The movie will be made, and although it might be viewed by some as another investigation (or another slant on this investigation), it should be remembered that it will be nothing but a commercial vehicle, and the promoters will do whatever it takes to claw bums onto seats in cinemas. |
I have difficulty understanding why they continued past the PNR/PSD without requesting - and getting - the latest wx report before committing themselves. Even then, I'd want weather that guarantees a landing, and not something deteriorating.
Also, why would you not carry as much fuel as possible? It delays the PNR/PSD to closer to the destination, and gives more time available on arrival. |
Originally Posted by Tinstaafl
(Post 9994905)
I have difficulty understanding why they continued past the PNR/PSD without requesting - and getting - the latest wx report before committing themselves.
Even then, I'd want weather that guarantees a landing, and not something deteriorating. Also, why would you not carry as much fuel as possible? It delays the PNR/PSD to closer to the destination, and gives more time available on arrival. |
I have difficulty understanding why they continued past the PNR/PSD without requesting - and getting - the latest wx report
Originally Posted by ATSB report, page 185
Some Westwind pilots reported they routinely used how-goes-it charts for relevant flights. However, most pilots, including the captain of the accident flight, reported they did not use the charts and had not been taught how to use them.
The OM indicated a how-goes-it chart could be used to calculate a CP, but there was no mention of such charts in relation to a PNR. The standards manager agreed that such graphs are used for calculating PNRs rather than CPs. ... The captain of the accident flight reported that, for a situation involving an off-track alternate aerodrome, he would initially work out if he could fly from the destination aerodrome to the alternate aerodrome with the required fuel reserves. If not, he would identify the last waypoint he could reach and still divert with the required fuel reserves. He would then know that the PNR was beyond this waypoint. This involved using the aircraft’s GPS to determine the distance and/or flight time to the last waypoint he could reach, and charts to determine the distance from that waypoint to the alternate aerodrome. After the captain had passed the last waypoint he could reach, his method involved conducting periodic checks of whether he was still able to divert from his current position. This involved using the aircraft’s GPS to calculate the distance to the alternate aerodrome. The captain reported that when checking his capacity to divert, he would use the aircraft’s current fuel flow and his best estimate of the expected groundspeed, given the aircraft’s current groundspeed and what information he had regarding the winds if he diverted. For the accident flight, the captain stated he would have based his diversion wind estimates on the current wind he was experiencing. Given that he did not have the current TAFs and NOTAMs for Nadi and Noumea, he would have based his estimations of the PNR on the assumption that these aerodromes were suitable for landing (that is, not also affected by adverse weather). ... The first officer stated she knew how to do PNR calculations, and she reported she had done calculations on some flights. However, she could not recall doing PNR calculations on the accident flight. |
in the operator’s CASA-accepted and audited ops manual |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 9995290)
They just accept the ops manual, they make no determination that the information contained there in is correct, particular with respect to aircraft information. Flew for an operator whose V1 take off data compiled in a ready use cockpit chart, and in the ops manual, guaranteed you would crash following a failure at higher temps if you elected to go following failure at, or after, V1. Chief pilots who write these things don't necessarily know the subject matter about what they decree. Cast a very jaundiced eye.
For what does CASA charge all that money to consider an application for an AOC? Isn’t a substantial part of the cost the time it takes to review the applicant’s ops manual? I would have thought that the unusual risks of operating into an island as remote as YSNF would have been obvious to even the most complacent of regulators and chief pilots. |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 9995290)
They just accept the ops manual, they make no determination that the information contained there in is correct, particular with respect to aircraft information. Flew for an operator whose V1 take off data compiled in a ready use cockpit chart, and in the ops manual, guaranteed you would crash following a failure at higher temps if you elected to go following failure at, or after, V1. Chief pilots who write these things don't necessarily know the subject matter about what they decree. Cast a very jaundiced eye.
|
I would have thought that the unusual risks of operating into an island as remote as YSNF would have been obvious to even the most complacent of regulators and chief pilots. |
What is the role of the regulator when considering an application for an AOC authorising international operations like these? And the Chief Pilot when overseeing these operations? If I the PIC is responsible for everything, why have a regulator and the position of Chief Pilot?:confused:
|
It's not that no one thinks that the regulator and the operator shouldn't have done a better job.
It's that this is primarily a pilot forum, and so the position of pilot gets the lion's share of the scrutiny here. |
Originally Posted by Checkboard
It's that this is primarily a pilot forum, and so the position of pilot gets the lion's share of the scrutiny here.
Originally Posted by Checkboard
It's not that no one thinks that the regulator and the operator shouldn't have done a better job.
In any event, you and I are at least in agreement on the point that the PIC of NGA was not the only hole in the Swill cheese. |
My observation is that Australian aviation fora are almost unique in the level of pilot-to-pilot back-stabbing, vitriol and criticism. The same does not occur in equivalent fora in other countries - at least not the ones in which I participate. The cultural difference is that Australians are very direct in their speech. The Brits back stab, they are just very polite about it, and the Americans back stab, they just bluster and obfusticate about it. ;) Swill Cheese - must be a Christmas delicacy. |
Come on LB, you know the answer to that. The role of the regulator is to protect the Minister and by default the government and the role of the Chief Pilot is to protect the company from CASA audits. The only person protecting the pilot is the pilot him/herself. It has always been like this! Any pilot who thinks that the rules and regs are going to protect him/her when the situation goes pear shaped, especially for marginal operations, is operating in a world of delusion. Why do you think the OM's always state that the fuel decision is ultimately the PIC responsibility? It lets the company of the hook if not enough is carried. Why do you think that the Airservices state that traffic holding for specific amounts of time at specific times of day are advisories only? It lets them off the hook when more traffic holding is required. You seem very reluctant to accept that the PIC has no other responsibility than to operate strictly IAW the OM and CASA regs and that if something bad happens then its not their fault. The PIC has a lot of autonomy to operate his/her aircraft however they see fit. Certainly not outside of the rules but they are not restricted by the rules if they consider the safe operation of their aircraft warrants it. So Pelair did not mandate full fuel but they did not prohibit it either. The weather reports were not automatically provided but they were not withheld if asked for. The crew could have declared a Mayday and the published minima would no longer have been a restriction but they chose not to. All decisions ultimately resting with the PIC.
|
And, I have to say - pilots who whine that "The company never trained me for that." ... and.. "I don't do that because it's not in the manuals." annoy me somewhat.
I have always thought that a professional pilot should BRING safety TO the company. If a pilot is only the sum of a company's training, then they aren't worth the money they are paid... a professional should proactively seek knowledge about the profession of pilot, not expect it to be spoon-fed to them. |
And, I have to say - pilots who whine that "The company never trained me for that." ... and.. "I don't do that because it's not in the manuals." annoy me somewhat. I have always thought that a professional pilot should BRING safety TO the company. If a pilot is only the sum of a company's training, then they aren't worth the money they are paid... a professional should proactively seek knowledge about the profession of pilot, not expect it to be spoon-fed to them. I think we all agree there were deficiencies on the part of the regulator and operator, and that these minima were too low. That does not however get around the fact that the PIC could and should have exceeded these. Its a critical society wide generational issue. With all the regulations and procedures and guidelines....., the individual at the pointy end is increasingly inclined to believe "all I have to do is follow the regs and if something goes wrong then the regs are to blame" Wold you drive down a freeway in heavy fog, torrential rain, hail, ice on the road etc just because the posted speed limit was 110? The maximum (in this case) allowable in this situation is 110. That doesn't mean 110 is always right. Road users are expected to apply discretion and judgement to these situations. So should pilots. |
The cultural difference is that Australians are very direct in their speech. The Brits back stab, they are just very polite about it, and the Americans back stab, they just bluster and obfusticate about it. Glad I’m merely a spectator and beneficiary of that race to the bottom. You seem very reluctant to accept that the PIC has no other responsibility than to operate strictly IAW the OM and CASA regs and that if something bad happens then its not their fault. I have always thought that a professional pilot should BRING safety TO the company. If a pilot is only the sum of a company's training, then they aren't worth the money they are paid... a professional should proactively seek knowledge about the profession of pilot, not expect it to be spoon-fed to them. |
My observation is that Australian aviation fora are almost unique in the level of pilot-to-pilot back-stabbing, vitriol and criticism. The same does not occur in equivalent fora in other countries - at least not the ones in which I participate. Then you state this: I guess you’re right. That’s what makes pilots so easy to divide and conquer.Glad I’m merely a spectator and beneficiary of that race to the bottom. You keep deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve been saying. I can only speculate on why your usual objectivity is missing in action. |
My observation is that Australian aviation fora are almost unique in the level of pilot-to-pilot back-stabbing, vitriol and criticism. The same does not occur in equivalent fora in other countries - at least not the ones in which I participate. Tootle pip!! |
And not to mention the level of condescension from those who think their aviation knowledge and experience is way above those of the "average" pilot.:D
|
And not to mention the level of condescension from those who think their aviation knowledge and experience is way above those of the "average" pilot.:D Tootle pip!! |
What made you think I was talking about you LS? Now what was that line from the Carly Simon song again......
|
What made you think I was talking about you LS? Tootle pip!! |
One man's tall poppy syndrome is another's BS meter. Aussie's have a finely honed BS meter and will call BS when they see it. Exhibit A:
I didn't particularly, |
Were you talking about me? :) I've made many mistakes. I wrote about some of them here:
https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/360003-few-flying-stories.html The reason I am so interested in this event is that I am constantly thinking "If it were me, what, honesty would I have done differently?" It resonates with me because I have flown this type, and for a couple of flights, for this operator. Indeed I did my Westwind endorsement with Pelair. |
What you say is infantile and I think my objectivity is correct when I state that you are a tossa :mad:wit I always laugh when pilots claim to be “professional”. Members of real professions don’t publicly criticise other members of the profession. It’s a ground for disciplinary action and, in worst cases, disqualification. Real professionals understand the reasons for these conduct rules. LL: You and the PIC of NGA are colleagues in the same profession. You and some other contributors to this thread need to work harder on pretending to be one. And I might have missed it, LL: Have you posted an example of a mistake that you made that could have resulted in a very bad outcome? I have, and I could provide many more. Please give your professional colleagues the opportunity to comment and learn from your experience. |
I always laugh when pilots claim to be “professional”. Members of real professions don’t publicly criticise other members of the profession. It’s a ground for disciplinary action and, in worst cases, disqualification. Real professionals understand the reasons for these conduct rules. Context Schmontext! Dear Bill A wonderful and entirely predictable response! I trust you’re well. After I waved away your usual vast experience smoke, and shielded my eyes from the dazzle of your usual motherhood statement mirrors, the plain words which I quoted above were still there. No matter how many times I re-read the context, no matter how much I squint, I can’t construe your word as meaning anything other than what they say. Context schmontext! I still think you were a teensy bit hypocritical in wearing your AOPA board member’s hat when you crossed the Rubicon. And you're a lawyer lecturing about professionalism:=Aren't most politicians lawyers by"profession". Looks like you have run out of anything useful to say LB. I am more than happy to discuss mistakes I have made, but only with other professional pilots, not desk jockeys. Why don't you answer CB's post as you accused him of never making mistakes? You might be interested in how professional pilots dealt with flying aircraft at their margins to marginal airports. So instead of trying to ridicule and downplaying his experience why don't you wind down the hubris and acknowledge his experience in these matters. My objective assessment stands. |
What you say is infantile and I think my objectivity is correct when I state that you are a tossa.wit |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.