Basically, the Act says that a person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct; and

(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation that is being conducted at that time or that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and

(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and

(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Executive Director.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.

My guess would be both Emirates and the flight crew individually (unfortunately) might get caught by this provision.

Thanks triton140...........

In other words, if Emirates and the UAE want to play 'hardball' on this one and not play nicely, then they might get hurt.

We need a lawyer's opinion.

I am not one, but would suggest that in order to get a conviction, it would have to be proved that they went back to DXB intending not to return to be interviewed.

I also presume that the crew has the right to be accompanied by a representative of their employer and their union (if any). In the meantime, where would they be expected to remain? In the hangar, in MEL, in Victoria, in Australia....?

I guess the important thing is whether they are prepared to cooperate if requested. That has not been disproved.

Compare with this: "The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has confirmed that QANTAS removed a flight recorder from the 747 involved in the accident in Bangkok in September 1999. A Senate Committee heard that the quick access recorder, one of the three black boxes, was removed from QF1 and brought back to Australia"

S.24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act (2003)
 

On a quick reading of the legislation, I doubt that the action of the aircrew departing for Dubai would in itself be construed as hindering the investigation under s. 24. It would of course be expected they would be avalable for interview when required by ATSB. Of course there is a requirement to file an accident report, and to allow access to the aircraft and flight data. No doubt this will be done by the company on the ground in Melbourne. There may also be obligations under the treaty. BTW I am a senior Australian lawyer but with no particular expertise in aviation law.

Three tail strikes were observed.
I have never seen one of these flights use an intersection departure - that was just a guess by a poster here.
At no stage during the flight did the crew mention an engine malfunction.
There is no off-set localiser antenna. The antenna is on the centre line and was significantly damaged by the passage of the acft.
The building 'arrowed' in Hempy's photo is the LLZ power-house.

Regardless of "how' the situation came to be, the crew subsequently handled the situation well, and got the wounded aircraft back on the ground such that everyone could walk away from it. Doesn't get better than that. Nice flying!

Equally IANAL either! But as far as Emirates itself is concerned, if they impeded the investigation (recklessly?) by repatriating the crew, then they're in the frame.

For the crew, probably not an issue unless they declined to be interviewed by ATSB.

But at the end of the day, as others have suggested, probably less of a legal issue and more about not getting up the nose of ATSB or CASA - because that ain't a good thing :=.

Yes, Triton140, that is the real risk for the airline. I hope for their sake they can manage the media though. Wait for it.

maybe one ADIRU screwed up again and wanted to climb this time .....

Doing an absolutely impeccable job so far! If it was QF we'd have had "Keilor Park kindergarten in narrow escape from runaway Qantas flight - seconds from disaster - offshore maintenance policy nearly claims yet more innocent victims."

Yes I know. BTW you put it so well.

Reality check !
 

Lets start looking at reality - rather than quoting verbatim this and that regulations.

Yes I am not a person that sits in the pointy end and yes you can pick apart my credentials to comment - I give that as an accepted.

But to have a go at said crew for following instructions to vacate is just wrong. They are instructions they followed, however strange and whatever rules have been broken they have followed instruction from the company. Neither you or I know if they contested those instructions stating blah blah legislation so lets drop that now.

PJ2: You might as well give up now - you are giving good information which seems to be ignored by those that want to focus on the small print of law.

Here is the reality check.

Regardless of who is to blame we need to learn what has happened and why. If it is a screw up then let us prevent it happening again. Over running a runway is not a trivial matter and I would bet what little I have in those in the pointy end not doing so intentionly, as a passenger I like to think those in control have the same value of life as I do.

So taking that into account, lets look at the aircraft performance, it seemed to underpeform for a reason. Let us understand this reason and learn from it,

Lets get rid of the culture of "the guys screwed up" before the facts are known and try thinking about what if it was you in the same situation with the circumstances prevailing.

It could very well be they screwed up - but I dont like to think anyone in that position of responsibilty has a death wish - so how they managed the situation is what we need to learn about along with how the situation arose.

Fair enough I guess .....

But I make no comment whatsoever re the crew (I am certain they did their absolute professional best to avoid a disaster, and they succeeded, so well done to them) - what does puzzle me is why the airline concerned chose to potentially upset the Australian regulatory agencies, the same agencies who could presumably hold the aircraft as evidence for a long time, the same agencies who ultimately determine the right of Emirates to fly to Oz, etc.

Not surprisingly, that does puzzle me (as does the lack of media attention) - but as you correctly point out, it is a side issue. The main question is why and how. And we do not yet have any concrete information to help us with that, so we are all guessing at this point.

Meantime, the knowledgeable contributions of professionals like PJ2 help us to understand the possible contributing factors.

A long landing on 34 would be difficult, hard landing though easy ;) as up slope.
FFRATS

Why are so many of us so damned willing - (indeed, almost tripping over ourselves in our eagerness to make our very own accusation)- to "eat our young" in situations such as these?

Have any one of the (too **ing many!) Monday Morning Quarterbacks who've written in on this thread stopped for one moment to ask himself how HE would like to be treated by his peers in the period before a proper, considered investigation finds him guilty or innocent should he be unfortunate enough to find himself in a similar position one day?

Maybe time to re-visit/revise FTL's. A manger's/beancounter's nightmare as it affects ''oh no my bonus''! Safety?what's that?We work nine to five why cant you?
Pushing crew to the limit will only catch up eventually.
Expensive employing crew?Try an accident.It is only a matter of time.

Everyone here seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about an uncorroborated allegation from one single poster that the crew were dead headed back to DXB two hours after the incident. Does anyone know this for sure? Perhaps it was only the cabin crew or even the relief crew who were returned. Perhaps if the crew were dead headed home they did so with the blessing of the Authorities. None of us really know the facts.

Too much conjecture and very little fact. By the way the official communication on the incident from the EK VP Fleet states that passengers and crew were provided hotel accommodation. Although I am no great believer in EK managements honesty why would they state this if it were not true.What would they have to gain. If it turns out to be true that the crew were whisked out of the country thus contravening some law, regulation or directive then that is a matter for the relevant parties to resolve.

The last time EK had a major incident the relevant Post Holder, our beloved TCK was shown the door. If there has indeed been a transgression in that area then it will be revealed in time as with all things and someone will cop it.

Get the crew home ASAP (if you can) , fairly standard practice. What ever has happened they have walked away.:D

.. even in fairly benign cases, so when it really matters, the authorities are on the crew like a rash? Right :rolleyes::rolleyes:

THE FACTS about the crew...... They are still here in MELBOURNE (this very minute, late on sunday evening).... EK has not whisked the crew away, and they were dealing with CASA TODAY..

I will not say anything else out of respect for my colleagues - two of whom I have flown with in the past and know to be competent pilots..

Getzo, I don't know how you end up with an impressive 227.0 EZFW ?
Is 225 pax a reliable number for that EK407 ?
I thought the "strong" guys were in North America only ... ?

A FRA type error in the Vr speed would explain a tailstrike half down the runway, but not an airplane still on the ground after 12000 feet.

I don't know that event, but I would see an error at least of that amplitude possible here ...