Oh yes one does. This fact had nothing to do with the crash.

Why so desperate to pin this one on the pilot, JamieMaree?

It's been a while since I've read the previous report, but this is the first that I've heard about the pilot not having a valid medical. If that's the case then how much actual oversight did the operator have of it's operations? If the operator had the pilot's medical expiry date in their crewing system, then the pilot should not have been asked to do the flight.

I know it was a multi crew aircraft and that the Captain is ultimately responsible, but I don't think that the first officers roles and actions were covered in enough detail for this accident.

As much as the Captain is responsible, it seems that there may have been many Swiss cheese holes aligning in this operation and this accident is the result.

@rammel, I think you are confusing the Seaview crash and the PelAir ditching. The single pilot of the Turbine Commander involved in the Seaview crash had an expired medical from memory. There was no such issue with the pilot of the PelAir aircraft.

You are quite right about the first officer's role. There was next to nothing about it in the first report and I will be interested to see whether there is any detail in the second report.

PLovett you have it exactly correct.
My post #941 took Vref+5 to task for suggesting the Seaview was a ditching, of course it was a crash into the ocean
Then Vref+5 says that it is the Operators fault that all the points I made took place. Clearly rubbish.
Then FDG135 presumably reckons I’ve got it wrong and says that the Seaview bloke needed to do the flight or he would spend a long time as an unemployable pilot. Maybe, but why would you employ a pilot with such a casual approach to exercising the rights and obligations of a commercial pilot.
Then Thorn Bird goes right off the conversation writing as though my words were about NFI ditching..
Then Rammel follows the theme.

jameemarie, name one regulation the pilot breached.

If you are talking about Seaview, how about the one that says you have to have a valid medical to have a valid commercial licence.

If we assume the pilot’s medical certificate had expired, the outcome is that the pilot was not lawfully permitted to exercise the privileges of his licence. That’s not the same as the pilot’s licence being invalid.

Nor is it the same as the pilot being medically unfit. Are you saying, JM, that the expiry of a medical certificae automatically results in the certificate holder being unfit?

Not at all. You need 2 bits to have a valid licence. One is the medical. Without taking the time to research the rules I’ll use the word valid and accept that it might not be the appropriate word. If he didn’t have a medical he couldn’t legally fly, that’s the point.

To demonstrate the point:
In an airline that I know, if a pilot crew member has slipped through the cracks and is discovered to not have a current medical , the flight may ultimately be delayed, 400 pax inconvenienced and put up at company expense in hotels until a pilot in the rank with a current medical can be found. The company had systems in place, but it was not totally idiot proof in that when someone wasn’t paying attention ( the pilot) and someone wasn’t doing their job (the system) , and the system caught up, there were consequences and one was that the flight didn’t proceed with a pilot who was not properly licensed.

"jameemarie, name one regulation the pilot breached."
 

Sunfish, are you talking about the Seaview accident?

I'm talking about Norfolk Island - Jamiemaree doesn't seem to want to understand that the accident was caused by a systemic failure. There is no single cause. A combination of circumstances trapped the pilot.

The obvious desire of the real culprits to escape blame was the reason for the punishment of the pilot. That is why the original report is a crock. That is also why the new report will be a whitewash. That is why CASA and ATSB are held in low repute and that is why the industry is deteriorating.

Hopefully new report will not be whitewash.

ATSB Conmissioner has told Senate it is a very different report that goes to the deeper issues.

Will know soon.

Sunfish, if you care to re-read my posts, none of them make any comment on the NFI ditching. All were in the context of Seaview.

EIGHT LONG YEARS
 

It has been 8 years next month since this ditching occurred.
One is left to wonder what lessons could be learned after all this time.
All parties involved have long since moved on with their lives, some doing not so well as others.

Should it eventuate that the PIC was an innocent party to the incident, what if any recourse would he have?

The delay in producing a report - eight years - makes a mockery of the ATSB, their investigators, and diminishes any conclusions...oh but that was 8 years ago. Regs and SOPS have been amended accordingly.

It is a joke, an embarrassment, and shameful. The fact that the bloated bureaucrats involved are still, STILL, procrastinating about this convinces me that this report is going to be the biggest arse covering exercise ever.

Shameful alright.

Isn't it funny how the final report was delayed again, at the same time ICAO advised CASA of an audit? I mean, it wouldn't be very nice having a nasty ATSB report criticising the regulator lying around, distracting the ICAO auditors from doing their job. Best to delay it to avoid any distractions (read - giving them any leads!!!) and let them finish the well rehearsed procedure. Now that the audit has finished I'm sure it will be released very soon which means CASA has about 10 years to bury it.

Just to be clear, that is sarcasm!!!

The ATSB site indicates that the report has been released to interested parties, and will be released publicly before year's end.

Yeah I'll bet...Christmas Eve at 4.45pm! :ugh:

4.45 pm...now now Magnum.
Have to be accurate here...thats the 4.59 pm Fax purl-lease.