I’m a little perplexed as to exactly what’s being debated about on this public forum in relation to the incident, lots of armchair experts making a lot of assumptions.

Fact of the matter is that the pilot identified that he/she wasn’t happy with the fuel quantity on board the aircraft and made very good decision to do something about it which resulted in an excellent outcome - case closed if you had no business in the operation. Let the authorities do their job and let’s wait and see what the final report brings.

[QUOTE=FGD135;10145354]Bend alot,

Your claim that:
Seems to be based on your assumption that the words "unscheduled engine shutdown" apply in this case. To my reading, they do not. An engine running out of fuel is not a major defect.

QUOTE]

The engine was scheduled to be running on arrival in Broome - that did not go to the schedule and one of them decided it would just stop!

Now that is a pretty clear case of "unscheduled engine shutdown" and CAsA class that as a Major Defect - if you are unsure call the number and ask them or use the email so you can share the reply.

When the engine/s stopped it was decided - there was no decision to be made!

The pilot made a great choice of where to land and a great job of the landing.
The outcome was excellent.

Let the authorities do their job and let’s wait and see what the final report brings - This was mentioned often in the first thread, as was it ran out of fuel!

Bend alot,

I think you will find that "unscheduled engine shutdown" is to be read as the shutting down of an engine, by way of a deliberate act from the pilot, at a time earlier than that at which the engine would normally be shut down.

To interpret it the way you wish to requires an instance of fuel exhaustion to be considered a major defect. Does that sound logical to you?

FGD, Someone mentioned talking to an FO in the previous thread which lead me to believe there was 2 crew on board but I'm happy to be corrected there as it's not really stated anywhere in particular if it was 1 or 2 crew. I don't dispute the fact that it was Fuel Exhaustion just to be clear, that part is cut and dry, I'm personally thinking it will be a few different factors that went into the part where it all went very quiet rather than any one particular reason, basing that on the fact that they specifically mention Fuel Contamination and water being found, they're looking particularly into the Fuel Indication System and Fuel system component serviceability as well so seems from the report so far that they're looking into a few different areas that wouldn't really be necessary if the Pilot simply had tried to take off with Low Fuel hoping for favourable tail winds, also the fact that someone mentions a Pilot was let go but is flying for another Operator now which says to me they aren't grounded by CASA which you'd think would have been done if they suspected negligence in the form of taking off without enough fuel.

CASA would need to wait for the investigation to be complete before revoking his licence. The possible negligence may still be in play.

If I speculate correctly do I win a cupie doll?

FGD, that is true, I can't remember but what happened with the Pel-Air Ditching case? Not on the same level as this one but I honestly can't remember if they revoked the PICs Licence or perhaps suspended his right to use it or not and it's the first case that comes to mind that is anywhere close to this.

Fine - the pilot shut one down deliberately due surge (prior to landing at Broome), the other shut itself down also prior to Broome.

But supply a link that it needs to be deliberately shut down, love to see it.

Pilotette, it was Horatio who mentioned the video, adds a bit of credence to it for me coming from him

I'll repost my cryptic clue in a previous post that nobody previously picked up on:
Holy maleficent mycelium, Batman!

Interesting suggestion there AbsoluteFokker, that would be a heck of a growth would it not? Is this you postulating based on other incidents or is this something you've heard come out during this particular investigation?

I can't remember the numbers, but I've flown types where the manufacturer has specified minimum fuel level required for flight. The figure stated was less than the fuel required to trigger the "Fuel Level Low" warning captions.
The point being, so long as that figure equated to flight fuel plus reserves, you could very well end up in a situation where the caution lights are on and still be legal, compliant etc.

Yes - it's a heck of a growth. Only what I hear third-hand about this incident. Not directly corroborated, so is it's still rumour until we see the report. Apparently an isolated fungal incident, and therefore rather unexpected, but given the severity of the outcome (total power loss) I'm sure there'll be some additional checks recommended by ATSB for Jet-A1 aircraft in the tropics.

From my own perspective on previous posts to this thread: If crew ignored any fuel warning lights either because they were instructed/suggested to do so and didn't write it up in the MR then that's a cause for concern, but, again, might not indicative of a company-wide issue at all.

I've owned aircarft with certain characteristics that might seem abnormal to others (e.g. nose wheel/tail wheel shimmy, especially at higher-than-normal ground speeds) but not enough to write up on a MR, so it's a fine line.

Maybe one day we'll have a pilots-and-engineers-only "gripe sheet" for issues that the pilot doesn't think warrant an MR entry (the PIC may be wrong on this) but at least it can get reviewed. Swiss cheese and all that. Might save a job or two as well.