From the Wikileaks link above That is a big motivator to make sure things are looking rosy when the FAA return.

“Looking” being the operative word.

Read my post #1145 first point #3 in it's entirety.

"RQ latest met report XXXX"

How onerous is that for FW/ATS/ATC? Responding to such RQs is part of their ATS.

If proceeding to such a location as I described, why wouldn't you enroute proactively check the location's WX reports including those for your alternate(s), particularly up to your diversion point? How else are you going to know what the situation is on which to base decisions, without finding out yourself?

AIP GEN 3.3 paras 2.1.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1 etc. & CAR 239.

Thanks for that.

As I said at #1148, I’ve learned something new. :ok:

Up until now I was labouring under the misapprehension that the ANSP would proactively provide new safety-critical information of which it becomes aware, to flights of which the ANSP is aware and to whom that information may be relevant. I now realise I was labouring under a misapprehension. It may not be provided unless requested.

AIP GEN 3.3 para 2.1.1 my bolding:
This has obvious implications if you are outside the time frame, and ATC/ATS will not be aware of any alternate(s) you may be carrying, hence you need to monitor them also.

Thanks for your feedback Sunfish. If you view the investigation report as a ‘shafting’ of the pilot, then you are missing the point of such investigations.

LB, the ‘we’ I refer to is all of us (those who choose to ruminate on this event).

Yes, I have made a mistake. ‘Got away’ with it. Learnt from it. Didn’t think anyone else shared the responsibility for it.

Midnight, I'd phrase that more strongly. We won't be aware of your alternate(s) and very definitely won't be providing information about them unless you specifically request it.

I assume you are a controller le Pingouin, just like to ask who is the custodian of the info that goes into a flight plan, info such as alternate, POB etc. Many thanks.

Thanks Le P - posted edited accordingly.

Just one mistake. Very impressive!

The PIC of NGA has acknowledged and taken responsibility for his mistakes. He just expects the other people who made mistakes to do the same.

megan, yes I'm a controller. If you're asking is there some form of ops control then the answer is there is none. Whoever receives the information is responsible for dealing with it appropriately - if it comes from briefing it would be via the flight data coordinator and they'll either add the info themselves or call the controlling sector who will do it. If you tell us via radio the controller will edit the flight plan accordingly (the active version in TAAATS not what you sent to the briefing office or NAIPS) or pass it on to whoever needs to know.

That’s not what megan asked, le P. But the theme of your and CM’s recent posts is clear: There’s a bunch of stuff that you don’t do.

A result is that the system operates counter-intuitively. Counter-intuitive systems encourage errors.

Intuitively, you’d believe that a flight information service that unilaterally provides information would provide the most important stuff as a priority. But noooo. At time X it can unilaterally provide information Q. At time Y it can unilaterally provide information R. At time Z it can remain silent on information S. Information S could be operationally more important than information Q and R.

The ‘excuse’ is that if you ask for it, you’ll get it, and you’re responsible for asking for it. The people in that stovepipe with their little bowl of rice are not obliged to do otherwise.

But the person on the receiving end is lulled into a false sense of security. They are being told some stuff. It doesn’t make sense that other stuff that could be as or more important can be withheld.

Why bother unilaterally telling me anything, if some important stuff can be withheld as a consequence of ‘the rules’? Better not to lull me into a false sense of security, and instead make it clear that nothing is going to be provided unilaterally and that I have to request everything.

You file a plan with a SARTIME (private jolly) for a flight departing from or terminating at an aerodrome in Class C airspace. Intuitively, you’d believe that if you never depart, the SARTIME would never be ‘active’. But noooo, the SARTIME is active in a different stovepipe of the system.

So then the SARTIME expires and someone’s looking for you. Intuitively, you’d think they’d call the control tower for the aerodrome in Class C airspace nominated as the departure or arrival aerodrome in your filed flight plan, to find out whether you actually departed (or actually arrived, if that was your destination). But noooo. ATC’s stovepipe and little bowl of rice doesn’t extend to dealing with this trivia.

Why am I referring to SARTIMEs about private jollies? Their treatment in the system is analogous to megan’s questions about the nominated alternate(s). Intuitively, you’d believe that the ATC system would be aware of the alternate(s) nominated in a submitted flight plan, and therefore there’d be a responsibility to unilaterally inform you of new information about the alternate(s). But noooo. It’s not this stovepipe’s responsibility - the rice bowl’s too small.

You might wonder why these counter-intuitive circumstances can continue to exist, and why so much effort is exerted to explain what won’t be done do for you.

It’s industrial relations.

Stove pipes and little rice bowls, all jealously and hungrily protected.

And I stress again that I’m not criticising individuals. The problem is the busted system in which they have to work.

I think you should give up flying altogether if you don't understand that the ultimate responsibility rests with the PIC for the flight from chocks off to chocks on. Or is it your Public Service mentality that suggests decision making has no consequences? Many years ago ATC had the responsibility for determining whether an aircraft could even attempt to land at an airport and had to give approval for flight plans. If I recall Dick Smith had a lot to say on the subject suggesting that the PIC should have that responsibility(and rightly so), so operational control was taken away from ATC. Now we get desk jockeys crying over the fact that information is not handed to them on a plate and that they have to demean themselves: "to request everything"

You have been dining out on your fuel calculations 27 years ago for a while and even in that you blamed the manufacturer's manual.

Really? He has never stated where he made his mistakes and recently has stated that even if he had full fuel he would still have had to ditch. I don't recall any acknowledgement of leaving an unconscious F/O in the flight deck or acknowledging that a MAYDAY giving details of where the ditching was going to take place would have been a good idea.

It seems that you have a similar mental model of the responsibilities of PIC and that it is every one else's fault. Like I said at the start you should give up flying altogether.

You sound like a blast to fly with lookleft.

The imposter LL posts again!

I said I made (and continue to make) “plenty” of mistakes. I said my mistake in the particular instance I mentioned - which was about fuel - was an error in my enroute calculations. As a consequence of my mistake I managed to use every drop of useable fuel, as stated in the flight manual for the aircraft.

I’ve seen the PIC on national television say he made mistakes.

Not quite the same as:

but then again only to be expected from someone who once said, then retracted, that the F/O was under no obligation to, and did not speak to the ATSB.

You also said that you once made a mistake. You didn't say that you made plenty of mistakes one of which was your fuel miscalculation. I can be as pedantic as you LB. The difference is I don't find it necessary to prove some sense of intellectual superiority. BTW there is only one Lookleft, the other bloke you refer to is entirely a product of your imagination.

KK-there are crew who would agree with you in both ways that your statement can be interpreted.:ok:

The real Lookleft was able to read and had comprehension skills.

From my post #1136:From my post #1141:The bit of the post I retracted was my incorrect assertion that the co-pilot had not volunteered information to the ATSB. But neither the PIC nor the co-pilot was obliged to volunteer information to the ATSB. They can be compelled to under section 32 of the TSI Act. Being compelled is not the same as volunteering.

If it is ‘you’, I’d urge you to get a check for early-onset Alzheimer’s. Your reading and comprehension skills have deteriorated, substantially, and the content of your posts is way out of character. Seriously.

Looking at the FDR data in the final report, it is clear the final approach speed was low, the final descent rate was high, and there was a high spike in the vertical g at impact. Not a criticism of the ditching - difficult at night in poor weather.

This data supports / explains the serious spinal injuries the nurse and doctor sustained.

It is unfortunate this data was not available at the time of the legal proceedings brought about by the nurse and doctor.

This objective crash data (which was always easily obtainable) would have been more helpful to the court than was obtaining undercover video surveillance on the nurse (although this video when played in court only served to substantiate the nurses claim).

I am sure that I will be shot down in saying this, but at the end of the day, a ATPL pilot in charge of a charter flight from an island in the Pacific to a remote island in the Pacific, an island with known variable weather conditions decided to leave with less than full tanks. He could easily have had full fuel capacity within his weight limits. This extra fuel may not have been enough to a diversion from Norfolk Island, but it would of given him the luxury of diverting at a later stage in the flight or a least holding overhead Norfolk Island for a couple of hours or more, flying some more approaches, and possibly getting in. Everything from the point of leaving without full tanks is in some ways pointless as he had removed his safety margin before he left. This is easy for me to say, in my flying career I always left will full tanks, I was not weight limited in the flying I was doing, but as it turned out there were many times I was thankful that I had a few extra gallons and the knowledge of my exact endurance. The PIC was no doubt between a rock and a hard place, but the extra fuel in his tip tanks may have possibly saved all this discussion, and his career. It is easy to be wise after the event.