It wasn't CC. That was a result of impact damage.

It doesn't look that way to me - I reckon they forgot the gear in the multiple approaches and that is the reason the aircraft snapped in half. The underwater film shows main gear down and locked...not forced out on impact.

'CC' I don't believe the gear was actually down for the water landing but it could have been. The 'Westy' would have to be one of the better airframes to drop into the drink even with the gear down as little of the gear protrudes beyond the lower part of the fuse anyway. It sounded like the TAWS was going off in the Vid clip on the 4 Corners show 2nite meaning that it activated due the A/C not configured for a normal Ldg which would have been the case in a planed ditching (gear selected up)

Anyway there's no doubt more to come on this one.

Wmk2

Bryan Abraham answered that from the ATSB report. The impact forced down the gear. "There but for the Grace of God, go I", springs to mind about this whole event and indeed I think many people are being wise after the event. The pilot must have done a first class job of ditching in the dark. The rate of descent at impact must have been perfect and IAS perfect for ditching. With absolutely no forward vision even though the landing lights were on but not displaying the waves, from what I can guess his ditching technique was spot on.

Earlier he was given a met report indicating cloud base 6000 ft which tied in roughly with the weather the day before. He believed it and let's face it, so would have most pilots at the time. Also given that a diversion to Tontouta would have him arriving there with eight minutes of fuel, no wonder he discarded that idea. So would have most pilots.

We should not shy away from giving the man the credit he richly deserved; and that is he made a successful ditching on instruments under conditions you would never try to create in a simulator because no one would believe you.

Where did 4C get the info to re-construct this clip.

1. I wouldn't believe anything that came out of the 4 Corners program. The reporter couldn't even get the name of the two main agencies correct (Civil Aviation Aviation and Safety Authority/Australian Transport and Safety Bureau????? what was the reporter thinking, zero credibility to start with!

2. Three Westwinds lost by the operator in just over 20 years.(Pel-Air was two separate AOC's for many years, one for the Jets and one for the Turbo-Props)
VH-IWJ – Oct 1985
VH-AJS - Apr 1995
VH-NGA – Nov 2009

3. The use of the term “High Quality” VHF Radio as against the “Poor Quality” HF. If you had any doubts about the accuracy information you hear on the HF you confirm it. Good RT practice especially when its safety critical information.

4. Its really that hard to get the weather by phone, and plan safely without access to a computer or the internet, or is it just easier to reverse your outbound plan and have a guess, don't forget though you will always use more fuel flying west!

The actions of the crew both in flight and during planning has to be questioned and was probably deficient in many areas, but how were they able to get themselves into the situation in the first place. It comes back to an organizational culture that has never been up to scratch and lack of training. Lets just hope that all involved learn from the event, and not point the finger in any one direction.

PS, I may be wrong, but the Westwing alternate landing gear extension operates by discharging high pressure nitrogen into the landing gear hydraulic system (up-lock, extension and down-lock). It is actuated by control cable from the cockpit that runs aft. It is likely that during the accident sequence as the airframe failed the cable tension activated the system, possibly even after the aircraft came to a stop.

The IAI1124 uses hydraulic pressure to keep the gear up. There is no mechanical uplock.

As soon as the hydraulics are breached from the gear side, the gear comes down. It's fairly heavy and will swing down and locked quite easily... even without using the blow down bottle. (I've seen it first hand while dealing with a complete hydraulics failure on a Westwind...)

Chimbu does have a point about aircraft selection, however I believe the Westwind is suitable for this type of operation. Quite simply, if one goes to a remote island constantly, without a plan B (alternate), eventually one will get bitten. Who cares what the law says, its bloody common sense! Just because it's legal, doesn't make it a good idea!

That was about 1 hour worth of fuel that was not taken by not filling those tip tanks. More than enough for one approach and diversion to NWWW.

As for that bad excuse of a joke as Director of Civil Aviation, I'm sure he would be quite happy if we all started planning our RPT ops using manual calculations for oceanic flights. "Back in my day..." yes well back in your day, you probably had a navigator and radio operator too. :rolleyes:

Still, it was quite a shock to read in the special audit report that there was no specific flight planning method for the Westwinds nor could the software under consideration consider enroute winds. If you can't afford or just won't pay for the proper tools (UVAir etc), then you shouldn't be doing that sort of operation. Fanging around from Darwin-Alice-Adelaide is completely different to long overwater oceanic routes...

I don't think anyone has mentioned the negligence of the co-pilot.
She was part of the CREW and as such has a responsibility and should have insisted on being consulted on the flight plan, fuel requirements, weather etc. From what I have read, she contributed nothing to the safety of this flight. This is NOT the good old days where co-pilots (gear up, flaps up, shut up) were xxkgs of excess freight.
I'm not saying the pilot in command (I would not call him a captain) did not screw up. He did, big time. But He is not alone.
I've ALWAYS INSISTED that my right hand seat check my work and my figures. That is what CREW's are about. Remember it's not who's right, but what is right!

Blaming the Pilot, the CASA way
 

CASA caught playing the man not the company in ABC TV exposé on Pel-Air ditching


The ABC TV 4 Corners report into the Norfolk Island Pel-Air ditching has this evening shown CASA’s director of safety, John McCormick, making an attack on the flight’s captain, Dominic James and excusing every single deficiency the regulator uncovered in the company during a safety audit as not being a cause of the accident.

However the program is also posting online the safety audit that CASA tried to keep secret and which materially contradicts McCormick in that the safety regulator he heads found among many things that Pel-Air was in breach of the safety rules and was inadequate in its management of fatigue.

The interview and the audit read side by side support the program’s opening premise that CASA scapegoated James in preference to carrying out its obligations under law to pursue the company.

McCormick would well know, and has insisted before the Senate Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety, that it is the airlines or operators that are responsible for safety outcomes.

As pilot James said near the end of the program, he was the pilot of a company that was being overseen by a regulator. Last night, on national television, the head of CASA unloaded all the blame for the accident on a pilot who had not even slept properly for two nights, and was employed by an operator that was so poorly overseen by CASA that it uncovered massive safety deficiencies, while benefiting from a defective CASA rule that excused it from operating as an air ambulance without sufficient fuel to fly to an alternate airport if for any reason a remote refueling airport in the middle of the ocean was rendered unavailable by bad weather.

McCormick’s performance and statements on air are not only inconsistent with the body of law on airline or operator responsibility for pilot training and standards, but were manifestly unfair to the pilot, even though the pilot undoubtedly made serious mistakes in the preparation of the flight, its fueling, and in dealing with the available weather information as the Westwind jet approached Norfolk Island from Apia.

(The 4 Corners report by Geoff Thompson also uncovered evidence the critical weather information had not been passed on to James at a point where had he known of the real situation at Norfolk Island he would have diverted to Nadi in Fiji rather than passing the point of no return where he had to continue to the intended tech stop.)

A fair question arising from McCormick’s performance is whether or not he is capable of taking direct public action against a high profile airline or operator other than Singapore owned Tiger Airways, given the severity of a series of safety failures at Jetstar that were also declared to be unworthy of investigation by the ‘independent’ safety regulator the ATSB.

Regulatory matters aside, the human suffering caused by the unsafe operation of the air ambulance flight by Pel-Air was movingly documented by the program, as was the vigilance and determination of their rescuers on Norfolk Island that brought all six souls to safety from the wild and dark sea in which they had to tread water for close to 90 minutes.

It is utterly shameful to hear that Pel-Air has not once been in touch with Bernie Currall or her husband Gary since the accident, and to see the ruin and despair that the operator’s unsafe and negligent conduct brought to their lives, as well as to Karen Casey the nurse who has lost her livelihood and suffers continued pain from her injuries.

McCormick heads a safety regulator that approved the removal of special life rafts from Qantaslink turbo-props serving Lord Howe Island, and has been unable to release any safety case or statement as to why it allowed this to happen other than the downwards harmonization of Australian standards to the depths of world’s best practice.

It is also an organization that has never explained the safety case that saw it determine that the sort of aerial work performed by the Pel-Air flight didn’t need to carry enough fuel to make a diversion from an oceanic airstrip in bad weather, although it has only recently expressed an ‘intention’ to change a rule it should never have tolerated in the first instance.

The 4 Corners program is an indictment of shamefully deficient standards and oversight by our safety regulator, as well as its disposition to crucify a pilot rather than the company responsible for the flight and safety standards of its operations.

The program, and the supporting documentation, will be readily found on the ABC site in the near future.

Pel-Air exposé catches out air safety regulator | Plane Talking

They will all be compensated big time. The operators insurers will offer a large out of court settlement. The passengers may not settle for this - depending on the amount offered & whether they are angry enough to have their day in court regardless.

It will be a sizable settlement. Medical expenses - ka-ching. Lifetime loss of earnings - ka-ching. Pain and suffering - ka-ching. Psychological trauma - ka-ching. Post trauma stress, PTSD etc - ka-hing. It will make south pacific fuel look very cheap.

The outcome is bad enough to justify a large settlement. However the special audit is gold to the lawyers. They will be drooling over this today and sharply revising their idea of a reasonable settlement. I wonder who had to call Singapore and explain the audit had been leaked to the media.

The audit is damning, and paints a picture even worse than all the rumors over the years. It will take more than one reading to get across all the issues raised.

The broader issue is how such a damning special audit got so watered down in the final report.

Where as any pilot watching knows who is responsible for ensuring there is sufficient fuel to complete the flight.
It is supposed to be confidential, I feel the release of the audit report into the publc domain has undermined the system

It looks to me that all agree that the crew,CASA,ATSB and pelair have a roll to play in what happened that day. Its just the % of blame that is up for discussion.

My question is what do you expect to happen to Pel Air now ?

Closed down the operation ? Persue them in the courts ?

I say this because i spent many years in pelair and know through discussions with current employees that it is a very different beast today.

Original owners Gone
Original managers Gone
original pilots Gone
Darwin ops Gone
metros Gone
Freight Gone

the way they operate has changed and this began before the incident.
REX come in and after some time gauging the operation changes started.I was around for the start of this and things looked ok. But change takes time and it will never be know if the changes/improvements in operation would have helped this be avoided.
Today they operate completely differently to the pelair many on hear claim to know. REX internal auditing system i am told is deeper than many external auditers go. Add to this the military auditing process that goes on for that part of the busines and the fact they are now and forever will be in CASAs sights. I can honestly say that parts of my existing employers operations would not stack up as well.

I guess i just have a soft spot for some parts of the operation and the people still there now that have either rode out the bad times or come on board and improved the operation. To the good guys. You know who you are. well done for improving the operation.
To the not so good. Well i guess you are another operators problem now.:eek:

This was a serious transoceanic flight.

Pelair dispatched the crew on the mission.

Would things have been different if they had rostered a much more experienced Co-Pilot; one with an ATPL and the ability to cross check Dom's flight plan? The challenges of this flight were vastly different to those of a normal flight around Australia and should have warranted a far greater degree of support from Pelair Flight Ops than was actually provided, including a Co Pilot who wasn't a junior.

Would things have been different if Pelair planned for pilot fatigue and duty time?

Would things have been different if the Chief Pilot consulted with Dom in Apia cross checking his flight plan and wx? If Dom didn't have internet, why didn't Pelair fax the flight plan and wx to him?

Would things have been different if Dom had received the correct wx from Nadi (600', not 6000') and crucially, that Auckland ATC passed on the actual wx report 300' ceiling to him when the Unicom operator advised as such?

After the incident, it was the Chairman of Pelair who immediately hailed the pilot as a hero. Was this a classic spin doctor tactic; to elevate the pilot to the public to deflect attention on where it should have been, so he could then be devoured by a hungry media looking for a hero and for blood, in particular, that ridiculous 60 Minutes report?

The conduct of CASA and the ATSB borders on criminal.

As unfortunate as this incident was, it will probably be the catalyst to force much needed change in the way the regulator, accident investigator and the airline operators relate to each other.

This will no doubt save many lives in the future.

That is the good thing to come out of this incident.

Due credit should also be given to Dominic James for electing to remain silent on this matter until now, waiting until the ATSB report was released so he could finally comment on the 'facts' as discovered by the ATSB.

Dominic conducted himself professionally throughout the whole aftermath of this incident. Lesser men would have taken the easy option and succumbed to the media feeding frenzy. He demonstrated patience, professionalism and humility.

It is to be hoped that any litigation includes CASA as co-respondent. While Pelair is clearly culpable on many fronts, the regulator allowed them to get away with it.
No wonder the Skull was in such denial on the 4 Corners program.

"It sounded like the TAWS was going off in the Vid clip on the 4 Corners show 2nite meaning that it activated due the A/C not configured for a normal Ldg which would have been the case in a planed ditching (gear selected up)"

Ah yes, I can't wait for the amateur accident investigators to come out with their analysis based on a YouTube recreation using Microsoft Flight Sim.
Did you know that FDR and CVR are still sitting at the bottom of the briney? So what was the recreation based on? Or should I say, on who's version of events?

I wouldn't put too much credence in the recreations last night what with the changes in aircraft type etc. and no input from the copilot.

You really need to read the audit report to get a better understanding of the goings on at the operator.

From what I have been told by somebody involved there CASA was there after the accident to perform two separate tasks. One was the investigation of the accident and the other, with mostly different people performing the special audit of the whole organisation. Two tasks and two different courses of action taken on the findings made. I will spell it out, one punitive and one not.The gentleman involved advised me the non-punitive spirit of the audit was followed to the letter of the law.

For a bit of extra CASA hilarity, check out the date the audit report was produced. One could be excused on the basis of that for thinking that CASA saw this accident coming?

I feel sorry for Dom but......

His flight planning skills were terrible
As such he should have taken Full Tanks
He should have worked out PNR's and CP's

Norfolk island is isolated and has a reputation for bad wx. Always have a backup plan.........At the very least he should have worked out how much fuel to divert 1 hour before and at TOD. That was worked out later after the event!! This should have been known to him before he departed.

Why didn't he bust the minima a bit? Maybe he did but won't say?
Why didn't he coordinate better his ditching position with the operator on the airfield BEFORE ditching?

Lots of holes in the Swiss Cheese lined up that night, as the PIC he should have been the last safety backup......

Different strokes for different folks.....
 

Thats our "regulator" ! Had the outfit that created this schemozzle been a smaller operator without airline connections..it would have been all over for them.
AOC cancelled, CP approvals cancelled, pilots not "fit and proper", licences withdrawn. Finito the lot.! :eek:

Was interesting to see how ABC put it all together.

And even more fascinating to see the very highly paid head honchos of both agencies, giving their cringeworthy performances.:D:D

For the money, the industry should get better than that.
But with CASA ( because of prior histories) at least we know we wont get better than that. Its CYA 101 in full swing. :mad:

Thats the nature of the beast....and what we have to live with.. unfortunately. :mad::mad:

I watched the program and couldn't help noticing that everyone was blaming everyone else! The plain fact of the matter is that he and his co-pilot made too many assumptions for what was a flight with few emergency/WX diversion options available. They did it fatigued, ill informed and with all the discipline of a crew with no experience on trans oceanic flights. They as the crew and ultimately he as the PIC, should have done what was right, not what they could get away with or what was easy or even legal. Citing CASA as a causal factor because they didn't impose more rules on them is a woefully inadequate excuse, you are the PIC for gods sake, act like one :ugh:

Thou shalt not run out of fuel!

There is no busting the minimum at Norfolk.If you get visual over the water you have to climb up through the cloud to get to the runway.

The magic of television??
 

Below, The Screaming Skull after having his 'Four Corners' pre-television make-up apllied!

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...son1-small.jpg

The decision not to depart APW with full tanks was certainly wrong, unless payload prevented it. Most of us agree that, regardless of any management desire to save a buck on fuel, we would have gone full tanks, or stopped in Fiji for a top-up. Maybe management prohibited that or would not pay for it, or had no fuel credit in Fiji? The report glosses over commercial pressures.
Earlier I mentioned a Bae 146 crew that gave themselves a good fright at NLK. Back then the rules did not require an alternate if the weather forecast met the usual mainland criteria. It was usual to go to a PNR which was normally about top of descent. Subject to what the unicom operator had to say, the decision was then made to divert or descend. Once the descent started it was a total commit to a landing.
On this occasion the weather outsmarted both the unicom and the crew and they did bust minima by heading out to sea, letting down until visual then clawing their way back up to the runway. It cost the Captain his command for a while. A bit harsh in the circumstances, but typical of the blame game that authorities and managements play to cover up their own inadequacies and poor policies.

Saving a few $$ on fuel, or reducing fuel burn by not carrying more than requiredis a good commercial practice. I mean a dollar saved is a dollar saved.

Just because the airframe can't be used again, who cares! :eek:

Ben Sandilands sums up this incident perfectly;

The Pel-Air incident ought to be a lightning rod for immediate action by federal parliament, with some remedial action in terms of transparency as a legislative priority followed by an appropriate committee hearing and ministerial intervention at the top of CASA, the air safety regulator, and the ATSB, the air safety investigator.

CASA and the ATSB ought not be responding to this report, but to a parliament seized with the seriousness of these failings in the public administration of air safety.

Pel-Air and CASA damned by safety audit documents | Plane Talking

Bring on the Senate Inquiry.

Seems odd that its shrouded in silence
Can the ATSB squash and hide an investigation report

Like I said last night, read the audit report. Ben is on to it, Pel-air should have been grounded based on that audit report. I've been Chief Pilot for regional airline and a large turboprop charter company and if we got that many RCA's they would have grounded us.

Pel-air had RCA's for training, operational control, maintance issues etc. And it appears the MIL ops had/have their own culture and don't really care about civil regs although they operate under a civil AOC.

There are many, many factors at work here, but a few things stand out for me:

The comment was made:

GEOFF THOMSON: With six people safely on board, they take off from Samoa just before dark.
Captain Dominic James had flown patients to Australia from islands in the South Pacific about 50 times in the two years he'd been a Medevac pilot.

So in two years in the South Pacific, he never picked up that weather at Norfolk was dodgy / changeable at the best of times? If he hadn't flown it personally, surely it would've come up in the pre-flight briefing with the CP, or at some point over hangar beers (don't know Pel Air's culture, so I'm guessing here).

Yes, there are many factors contributing that can be blamed which have been listed in other posts but at the end of the day, there is only one bum in the left hand seat.

As Richard de Crespigny (QF32) points out - a flight deck is not a committee.

I was reminded of a comment by the late, great, Gordon Smith who said (or quoted) - a superior pilot uses his superior intellect to keep out of situations where his superior flying skills are required.

The true heroes (for me) are the blokes who took their boat out through a narrow gap in the reef, at night, in crap weather, with no information but guesswork, and came back in again safely. And the bloke who went and stood on the lookout, and looked all around, to see the torch. Quite scary to consider that survival came down to a bloke, on a hill, who used his eyes (no radar, no Spiderwatch, no Flight Tracker) to look in the wrong direction (West, not South, as assumed).

And another thing.....
 

The CASA Pel-Air audits should both be made public. Then we can play "spot the difference".
That the "Safety" agency should hide behind keeping these off the record, should be of very serious concern of the Minister. There is one ??:sad:

"Government (and its agencies) efforts to manipulate or block information should be presumed to be anabuse of power" .

CASA has the power. And they sure hell know how to use it and abuse it.
As we know. :mad:

Senate Enquiry desperately needed.:ok:

Yes I find it incredible that he didn't keep close contact with the CAGRO during the ditching telling exactly where they were all the time basically up until contact with the water. There were 2 Pilots for gods same!!

They were extremely lucky to have been found that night.

Albo it's time for "heads on a stick"!!
 

The transcript and the extended interviews for skull and ..dddoollan are worth the time to read, view and absorb!!

Transcript link:Crash Landing - Four Corners

Extended interview link: Crash Landing - Four Corners

Me thinks its past time for a top down culling!:E

ps anyone with the know how to copy and upload to utube be much appreciated??

Personally, I see this as two separate issues. Firstly, the PIC put the aircraft into a situation where he and his pax were at risk. Pure and simple. He stuffed up and he deserves to face the consequences.

The second issue is CASA surveillance combined with an operator who were bereft in their duty of care. But their derelict behaviour did not lead to this occurrence.

Mr James was not cognisant of the risk of an isolated aerodrome. And that came with consequences.

Conga line of suckholes
 

It is time that a royal commission into Australia's aviation decline was held.
CASA doesn't know how to regulate, ATSB no longer know how to investigate, and ASA no longer know how to navigate.

The past 10 years has seen a massive trend upwards in incidents, not to mention crashing Westwinds, Brasillia's and not far off our shoreline Dash 8's. This excludes the ongoing issues with a number of Australian Operators which is simply overlooked, dismissed due to potential political fallout or simply because the oversighting bodies are incompetent and incapable of recognizing risk.
How much is enough? How big must the smoking hole be?

As an absolute beginning there should be an immediate 'plank walking exercise' initiated that should include the removal of the CASA Director, Deputy Director, Associate Director, CASA Board, ASA Board, ATSB Commisioner and his two sidekicks, and Minister Fumblenese.This group has lost it's direction if it ever existed. Has nothing been learned from Lockhart and Seaview for Christ sake?

The systemic issues highlighted in the Norfolk 'special audit' are unbelievable. How the hell did CASA and the ATSB overlook this generated report? The Skull and Co are always talking the talk about safety systems, company cultures, the 'Swiss cheese' model etc, yet The Skull can only manage to get on TV and ramble on about the Captain James and overlook all the other evidence? What more proof do you need that the regulator is being run by out of touch and outdated pensioners. Time to put them to pasture. The ATSB has become an embarrassment. I feel for the last few 'old timers', the decent investigators being hamstrung and 'softened' by a spin spewing **** machine more concerned about playing hide the sausage with Government bureaucrats. And as for ASA, well at least Russell is gone, ran away like a spineless lamb but at least he went, but that doesn't alleviate the systemic issues at ASA. Then you have in politicians lingo 'the overarching' mucous that binds all this dross together in one tightly packed parcel of pony pooh - The Minister. What an embarrassment. No wonder the FAA wanted to downgrade Australia's safety level. This country's aviation ability to enforce, oversight and adjust safety, standards and systems is now probably worse than bloody China, Africa, Russia and Indonesia......Shame shame shame.

Tick tock

The state of Australian medical air transport:

If you have an accident and need urgent medical extraction, you will be sent a shiny new PC12, King Air or similar to pick you up.

If your injuries are non-life threatening and only need patient transport, you will most likely be sent a 30 or 40 year old Chieftain, Navajo, Westwind, etc.

Why? Because the charter companies engaged by the govt and insurance companies to contract such services are driven by the lowest common denominator: price.

The parameters for the tendering of medical transport services need to be widened to include age of fleet and operational standards, not just the cheapest price...

KLN94 - not quite sure how the age of the aircraft played a part in this accident. Can you assist?

PS: In NT & SA, all medical transfers - whether emergency evac or patient transfer between hospitals or clinic runs with non-RFDS health staff - is done in shiny new PC12s.

Good point indeed. Would that include a two-bit hack outfit in FNQ with prehistoric Dash 8's that does medical evac wotk to places like PNG while not having said permission granted to them on their AOC?

outnaboutKLN94 - not quite sure how the age of the aircraft played a part in this accident. Can you assist?

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting the age of this particular Westwind was a contributing factor in this incident.

I am however suggesting that typically, charter companies that also provide medical transport services, generally have a fleet with an older average age rather than a younger fleet like RFD etc.

This is because they are a commercial operation and subject to ruthless commercial pressures in order to stay afloat, and the insurance companies and government agencies that contract such services [generally] pick the charter company that has the cheapest price rather than youngest fleet.

I don't think age was a factor at all, the Pelair Westwind 1 & 2's are some of, if not the highest time Westwinds in the world.
There have been a few incidents and failures directly related to age in the past few yrs. 1 was a roof outer skin panel blowing out and causing a rapid decompression, I think that was due to age and corrosion/stress fractures from memory.

Gobbles mate there is no doubt about it you really know how to cut through the pony pooh and lay it out for everyone to see...but it still seems like individuals want to pussyfoot around and continue to ignore the couple of elephants in the corner!!

This bit Gobbles is oh so true..Probably best summed up by this bit in the transcript..
What gets me is it takes three years to complete a report (not even Lockhart took that long!) and even then they still couldn't get it right:ugh::ugh:.....nah mass top down culling is what's needed here!:E

Gobble,
Go easy on China, CAAC is a seriously competent organisation these days, with a set of rules based on the FARs, with some JAA/EASA influence evident in the maintenance area.
CAAC is also a damned sight easier to deal with than CASA.
Tootle pip!!

Pilots group wants new investigation into Norfolk Island crash

Start listening from 19 min 25 second mark
The World Today - Pilots group wants new investigation into Norfolk Island crash 04/09/2012

The special audit is damning.

One thing I noticed is that it seems like a tale of 2 airlines. Rex was compliant and safe PelAir was a problem.

It does make sense that they left existing management in charge at PelAir when they merged some years ago. However the net effect is that Rex appears very well insulated. I guess Rex is where the real revenue is.

Someone is always left looking for a chair when the music stops. Dom is one. Wally didn't fare to well either. Anyone heard what he is doing now?