Jump to content

Four Corners tonight


Guest ozzie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest ozzie

Covering the Pel Air ditching off Norfolk Island. Sounds like CASA and ASTB is getting a serve (again).

 

ABC 8:30pm tonight 23rd.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ozzie

This was an update on the first one.

 

Ozbear would have done better to fill the tanks or have enough for an alternate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was an update on the first one.Ozbear would have done better to fill the tanks or have enough for an alternate.

And CASA would have done better to mandate aeromedical flights to carry enough fuel so airlines are not tempted to save money on light fuel loads. ATSB would have done better to have investigated the systemic failures of CASA in relation to Pelair. ATSB has been ordered to re open the investigation, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 Corners must be having a blitz on the aircraft stories, they did QF32 last week - I'd recorded it and just watched it. Good watch, it's probably on Iview if you missed it and want to see it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was an update on the first one.Ozbear would have done better to fill the tanks or have enough for an alternate.

I agree Ozzie as is the responsibility of every PIC I am just saying he did well to get a jet down at night on the rough ocean in IMC conditions in only 2 pieces and have such a good survival rate

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Ozzie as is the responsibility of every PIC I am just saying he did well to get a jet down at night on the rough ocean in IMC conditions in only 2 pieces and have such a good survival rate

easy to say when you're flying your jabiru a couple of hundred miles on a sunday afternoon. Probably a little different when you work for a company that has to constantly balance between safety, money and performance and that also has a stack of 100 resumes on file should you not tow the line. I'm sure there is plenty of weather that a weekend PPL wouldn't fly through in a cessna 182 that a regional freight jockey would have no choice other than to suck it up and give it a shot. point is, it's awfully easy to sit here and preach about PIC duties, but out there in the big bad world, things are probably a little more complex than they are for most of us....

 

 

  • Agree 5
  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

easy to say when you're flying your jabiru a couple of hundred miles on a sunday afternoon. Probably a little different when you work for a company that has to constantly balance between safety, money and performance and that also has a stack of 100 resumes on file should you not tow the line. I'm sure there is plenty of weather that a weekend PPL wouldn't fly through in a cessna 182 that a regional freight jockey would have no choice other than to suck it up and give it a shot. point is, it's awfully easy to sit here and preach about PIC duties, but out there in the big bad world, things are probably a little more complex than they are for most of us....

I agree I'm not preaching anything just stating a fact it's the poor old PIC that gets the blame I think he did a great job getting it down.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the program and I was left feeling angry . The pilot, at least on that flight, was extremely skillful to ditch it without killing everyone, however, it still leaves the fact that he was PIC and as far as I`m concerned, it was his responsibility for having the right amount of fuel on board, for the flight, no excuses, period.

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

="farri, post: 484004, member: 581" it still leaves the fact that he was PIC and as far as I`m concerned, it was his responsibility for having the right amount of fuel on board, for the flight, no excuses, period.Frank.

Unfortunately Frank, CASA have agreed with you, and, made it of strict liability.

 

Doesn't matter how "legal" you are, if you run out (After 4 missed approaches) its your @r$3 in the drink.

 

Kinda made me rethink how many flights we do that are on min fuel (over half) But, i don't like the idea of telling the customer that we are going to have to fly longer legs to allow a fuel stop or explain to the CP why we lost most of our work to a competitor who is happy to run on min fuel.

 

I did a flight last Friday and had a 7min margin, wasnt even 20NM into the flight 420NM when a new ARFOR AND TAF were released now with holding requirements for both the destination and suitable alternate. So what to do? ive already departed with valid WX not requiring it, if i return for fuel ill have to kick out a passenger, if i divert en-route it would be a $500 loose to the company as I hadn't quoted a fuel stop and I wouldn't like to see the bosses face if I had said " I'm perfectly legal to continue but thought best to spend $500 of the company money on obtaining more fuel". Not my words but how it would have been taken.

 

Obviously I continued and it was CAVOK all day, as it will be 99.999% of the time, last night is a nice reminder that when the 0.001% does happen which it will, that I better make every decision exactly right because someone will work for weeks if not months to figure out if I could have done anything better and in the case of last night conclude that, you should have carried more fuel even though you weren't required. Also nice to know that everybody else will run and hide behind lawyers quick smart.

 

Ps sorry about the mistakes/grammar etc. back space isn't working on my computer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben, I`ve no comment on the case you`ve outlined.

 

The Pel-Air flight was an air ambulance flight, conducted at night, over water, in terrible weather, all the more reason to have surplus fuel on board and I`m not just saying this because of the tragic end to the flight. A very expensive aircraft was lost, not to mention the cost of the rescue, so where was the $ saving by not carrying extra fuel? Though everybody survived, a lot of lives have been severely damaged,how do you put a cost on that?

 

If flights are being conducted with more concern for the pilot maintain their job, saving $ for the company so it can remain viable and keeping the CEO happy, then I say, this is a sad, sorry and dangerous state of affairs that needs to change.

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank I aggree and might not have worded my post the best!

 

The point that I was trying to get at was, rather then enforce greater fuel, CASA have left it open for aeromedical flights to not carry island reserves and then have shafted him on the strict liability side for running out.

 

I agree that obviously had he had an alternate that accident wouldn't have happened but I think it is sad for him that he was "legal" (airmanship aside) and still held entirely responsible for running out.

 

Had it have been required, then you don't have the worry of the next pilot being happy to proceed with a flight that you weren't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that I was trying to get at was, rather then enforce greater fuel, CASA have left it open for aeromedical flights to not carry island reserves and then have shafted him on the strict liability side for running out.

Ben, Does it really require CASA enforcing greater fuel requirements? I would think, if nothing else, self preservation should ensure that the pilot demand that there be sufficient reserve for a safe flight.

 

I certainly feel sympathy for the pilot but I won`t back away from what I`ve said about who`s responsible for the amount of fuel carried.

 

I don`t really know, just using logic here, but I would reckon there`s a lot of pressure put on commercial pilots to save $ so the company can remain viable, probably ok, if it falls within safe limilts, not acceptable at all, if it`s cutting the margin too small, too great a cost when it all goes wrong and not just financial cost.

 

Frank.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think to your question is yes. They have seem fit for different ops to require it and from what I understand if it wasn't aeromedical ( airwork) there would have been an alternate requirement.

 

It's hard to justify something that isn't illegal.

 

But, it does depend on, if the flight was payload critical or not. If he had weight available yea, a bit for mum and the kids but, I doubt thats an alternate aerodrome so might not have made much of a difference.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this day and age allowing a situation such as "if it wasn't aeromedical (airwork) there would have been an alternate requirement" is just archaic thinking. There should be no circumstance where any operation should place people at significantly increased risk due to an 'aeromedical' situation. It's rather like endorsing firemen placing themselves in great jeopardy in an attempt to rescue one bed-ridden geriatric in a burning house and perishing as a result. Just crazy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here if you want to see. how if the pilot in command decides how much fuel should be carried. or the CEO decides.

I didn`t need to go any further than 1.15 minute into the video! As I see it, regardless of the type of flight, the pilot/s, are still the ones who fly the aircraft and, therefore, responsible for everyone`s safety... By accepting the pressure or the decision made by the CEO,or, the company policy, they are complicit in the decision made about the amount of fuel to be carried. If they believe there is not enough margin for a safe flight, then I say, they should refuse to fly, better for everyone concerned.

 

Frank,

 

Ps, No need to tell me that pilots are afraid to loose their job, by refusing to fly! Poor excuse if it all goes wrong,though! Pilot/s may not be with us any longer! No job required.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pilots need to be united on this though. If the experienced pilot stands up to the CEO and gets fired, who replaces them? Someone with less experience who's willing to toe the line. Now you've got the situation where the same problem exists, but the PIC has less chance of getting you down alive if the fan stops.

 

The only way this is going to work is if pilots are united and all stand up for safe flying practices.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way this is going to work is if pilots are united and all stand up for safe flying practices.

Absolutely Correct!!! I didn`t say it because I didn`t think I needed too.

 

We then get back to the fact that the safety of everyone on board is in the hands of the pilot/s, therefore, the responsibility falls back on their shoulders.

 

Frank.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from the PIC's final decision - if fuel reserve was conservatively regulated - then all businesses would have the same cost imposed on them - the playing field would be level for all - the risk would then lessen .............. or is that to simple a solution ?

 

looking at the Ryanair video above - that looks like an option that might happen ?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...