Originally Posted by Lookleft
Seems to be a fella, who might have spent the odd hour or two, or three, operating over very deep water, very far from anywhere, not to mention, in particular, quite a lot of very relevant book work.

http://www.ibac.org/wp-content/uploa...ard-Davies.pdf

So I take it that this Ex RAAFie is one that we like, (Using Down and Welded's Royal We) as against all those other Ex RAAFies that is "destroying the Industries".
I am working my way through Mr Davies' contribution to the fuel dilemma, I find his assumptions no more "correct" than any others' assumptions.

Errrm, you haven’t been paying attention, megan.

Ironically (given your suggestion that I’m a Skygod along with Lookleft), I quote my post in response to Lookleft’s suggestion that I claimed I’d only ever made one mistake:As you say: we all make mistakes nearly every flight.

I think you’re correct, KK: Down and Welded’s finely crafted rhetoric pegs him.

No True Scotsman
 

I see we(using Down And Welded's Royal Weee) are now using logical fallacy against him(down and welded).
Should he make the statements that he has, then he is no true aviator.

Enough!

The pilot was not prosecuted because there was little chance of conviction and the operator and CASA would be dragged through the mud by the defence.

The operator was not prosecuted because there was little chance of conviction and CASA would be dragged through the mud by the defence.

The regulation says that the pilot and operator must take 'reasonable steps" to avoid running out of fuel. The regulation then goes on to state that the courts, not CASA, must determine what is reasonable under the circumstances of the flight.


What DJ did was 'reasonable". He complied with rules and regulations and still failed. This throws into doubt CASA's entire regulatory strategy - for which DJ is still being punished, unjustly.

Too funny LB. :8 Despite our allegedly well crafted responses too each other in the end we get lumped into the same basket labeled "skygods". I doubt megan will be able to get any clearer picture from your post to clear up his post about any previous post. :D

Thankyou Ventus for posting Richard Davies CV. Doesn't make his contribution any more credible though as ED states: and as LB stated:


In the end his calculations of the FOD was nearly half that of the actual fuel at ToD as stated in the report.

So, how do we go about ascertaining the correct numbers?

Lead Balloon, I am going to start with full tanks, both main and tips.
Now, someone explain to me why this aircraft will not attain altitude with full tanks, when I see from previous flights that it did. After this is settled there are a few more details required.

If you don't want to accept the ATSB's methodology then you have to come up with your own. R Davies figures were based on the information provided to him by whoever commissioned him so his figures can only be considered "correct" in that context. The ATSB sets out the different methods that Pelair used to determine fuel. Either the fuel/hour figures or the 23lb/min method. I am assuming that the fuel figure quoted at ToD was derived off the FDR. For me the bigger issue is what was done with that fuel once the PIC realised that the weather had deteriorated and they couldn't divert.

That’s only an opinion Sunfish. I’m not saying you’re wrong but it is just one persons opinion that what DJ did was ‘reasonable’.
Obviously some people think his decision making was not up to scratch, you obviously think his decision making was ok. Such is life.
At the end of the day if all a PinC had to do was comply with the legal minimums we would be seeing fuel emergencies left right and center. But they don’t, they have to put on enough fuel to keep the aircraft safe and make a series of decisions along the flight that ensure that the reserve fuel is never used. That’s the goal. Unless you’re at war completion of the mission is secondary to ensuring that reserve fuel is not used. I sometimes wonder if some pilots realise that.

I agree with that but I think some pilots forget that it’s a business at the end of the day and the fuel policy has already been risk assessed by CASA.

I prefer my own risk assessment as the CAA rarely turns up to discuss the forecast with me :)

Oh - so you can interpret the fuel requirements without CASA.

CASA and your employer set the MINIMUM requirements

And what were the factors at the start of the flight that indicated more than the ‘minimum’ fuel requirements should be carried? Other than hindsight.

Calm down kellyk, no need for obvious indignation, my response was supposed to be light hearted.
I’m not really sure what your driving at with
I do what most do and ensure that the flight planners have built the plan IAW the regs and that provides me with the absolute minimum fuel I can legally depart with, then I decide what I want to depart with, from there I have two figures in front of me, what I think is a safe quantity, and what the rules say is the minimum quantity. I simply choose the highest one and have it loaded. Easy.

LB and Kellyk, my comments above are not meant to be a criticism of DJ or of that flight. I was just trying to answer kelly’s cryptic comment about CAsA when he brought into question how I personally do my fuel planning. My days of building plans like DJ had to are twenty years past.

Yes - sorry qanda. Out of line. I’m at dinner and a few wines - you know. Apologies.

Well people,

I guess we (not the royal we) but supporters and them with malice and aforethought, can now put this debate to bed.

I understand that today Mr James completed a $25,000 Check flight with two CAsA "experts" who's time cost around $160 per hour, each, and has been cleared to complete his final command check to line, which will probably run to another $25,000.

Nice little earner for CAsA, one big expense for the operator, but maybe someone somewhere thought eight years in purgatory was enough.

73ganda - I have no opinion on what DJ did or didn't do. I stated that the test for a legal conviction is what is "reasonable" as determined by the Court.

DJ complied with his employers instructions and the regulations. Neither CASA or ATSB could show that what he did was unreasonable.

He thus demonstrated the existence of a gaping hole in CASA's regulatory strategy - that the regulations are strict of necessity to keep the public safe and that adherence to the letter guarantees a safe outcome.