(There are updates from CASA and the ATSB at the end of this post.)
Wednesday night’s ditching of a Pel-Air CareFlight medivac Westwind jet is being turned into a media circus by the airline and some very susceptible reporters.
First reported in the Crikey subscriber email today, the incident which left six people, half of them without life jackets, in the sea for at least 60 minutes awaiting rescue after their jet ran out of fuel, has even been compared to the actions of heroic Captain Chesley Sullenberger in landing the US Airways A320 on the Hudson River last January.
What a load of weak minded idiotic drivel.
And John Sharp, a former aviation minister, put up this ridiculous statement this morning as chairman of Pel-Air Aviation, which is owned by REX, the regional carrier.
John Sharp, Chairman of Pel-Air Aviation said that he was very proud of the Captain and the First Officer. “They performed an intricate landing on water in darkness resulting in the evacuation of everyone safely and quickly. The training of both the Pel-Air and CareFlight crew came to the fore as everyone kept together and remained calm. Their professionalism stood out on the day and made a substantial difference to the outcome.”
The nonsense words we have highlighted are ‘very proud’ and ‘professionalism’.
The pilot, Captain Dominic James, ditched a plane carrying passengers in the sea in the dark because he ran out of fuel. That isn’t professionalism.
Where exactly is the professionalism in Pel-Air when it operates a flight that is inadequately fuelled for a worst case diversion, such as depressurisation, or a closed airport, and has no where to go but into the drink, instead of having the juice to divert to the nearest airport in New Zealand or New Caledonia.
For John Sharp to say he is ‘very proud’ of this situation suggests he has forgotten everything he ever knew about aviation and flight standards, or has no knowledge of or respect for the regulations as set out later in this post.
On the ABC tonight Sharp says there was no Plan B if the weather turned nasty.But the weather had been nasty for quite some time on Norfolk island yesterday. One of the principles of safe airline operation is to always have a Plan B, and the fuel to carry it out.
If it turns out that this flight was operated in accordance with the companies operating manual, which is one of the requirements of its AOC or air operator certificate, then CASA is in serious trouble for lack of diligence in approving it. It the flight wasn’t carried out in accordance with the regulations CASA must surely serve a show cause notice in relation to the potential cancellation of its AOC and prosecute the owners and board of the company, who have very serious responsibilities in aviation law.
And even if the conduct of the flight met the conditions required by the company, what sort of a company are we dealing with when this sort of crash is, as Sharp’s comment imply, a consequence of deliberately flying with only a Plan A?
Here is the relevant extract from the regulation CAO 82.0 concerning the Pel-Air flight:
1.1 This Part applies to Air Operators’ Certificates authorising aerial work
operations, charter operations and regular public transport operations and sets out conditions to which such certificates are subject for the purposes of…
remote island means:
(c) Norfolk Island.
(a) the minimum amount of fuel that the aeroplane should carry on that
revised (if applicable) as directed by CASA to ensure that an adequate
(b) if the operations manual does not make provision for the calculation of
that amount or has not been revised as directed by CASA — whichever
2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are:
(b) the minimum amount of fuel that would, if the failure of an engine or a
loss of pressurisation were to occur during the flight, enable the
(i) to fly to its destination aerodrome or to its alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(ii) to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 feet above that aerodrome under standard temperature conditions; and
Suggestion: CASA should act immediately in relation to these prima facie violations of CAO 82.0 (subsection 2.4) and prosecute the owners and board of the airline for multiple offences.
CASA should also conduct a full audit and review of every aspect of Pel-Air’s operations and its fitness to hold its AOC, with particular regard to its fuel reserve policies.
Update 4.15 pm Friday November 20
A CASA spokesman said:
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the ditching of the Pel-Air Westwind aircraft at Norfolk Island and any comment on the investigation must come from them.
CASA has legal requirements for air operators to carry sufficient fuel to undertake a flight safely. This includes additional fuel to deal with delays caused by weather or other factors and enough fuel to divert to alternate aerodromes.
CASA is examining issues relating to the planning of the flight that ditched at Norfolk Island.
Update from the ATSB at 5.15 pm
A spokesman for the ATSB said that the jet was in around 30-36 metres of water, but that a decision on whether the data recorders (black boxes) would be recovered would not be made until after the pilots were interviewed next week.
The other four persons on board would also be interviewed.
12 Comments
Excellent article, Ben. As a professional pilot I could not agree with you more. It is about time that someone says it as it is. CASA should be ashamed of itself if it doesn’t use this latest accident as an opportunity to stop all its bureaucratic and politically correct pussyfooting. It’s high time it started policing this industry. It appalls me to read how this accident is being hailed by the uninformed idiots as some sort of a heroic operation with an acceptable outcome. A check into this operator’s colourful past would reveal two other accidents – both with fatalities – due to “let’s make it up as we go” procedures. The Captain of this aircraft has certainly got nothing to be proud of, as it was his lack of command authority and judgement that got him, his crew and their poor captives into a highly perilous situation from which they were very lucky to survive. Until CASA gets serious, there will always be operators who will put commercial expediency ahead of what is aeronautically prudent, usually assisted by weak crews who don’t want to rock the boat on their way up the aviation ladder. Shame on them.
Thank you for reading and safe flying.
Cheers
Veeonerotate
And how does the three life jackets for six people stack up Ben? I know it wasn’t RPT but as the palne would routinely operate as RPT wouldn’t it be required to carry six?
Sorry, just to clarify, fuel is clearly more important than life jackets but does it indicate a company culture.
Absolutely spot on Ben and others. I was a working pilot for 30 years and had my share of frights like most professional drivers.
I was probably no ace but in 16000hrs of flying I never never ran out of fuel. My instructor said to me back in the 60’s that flying had ten comandments and they were all the same–never run out of fuel, the cardinal sin.
My memories of pel-Air certainly aren’t all the best either.
You hit the nail on the hammer here Ben. I was amazed that no-one else picked up on this whilst the mass media were continually reporting the “Hero Pilot” line on TV & Radio the past 2 days. See a thread I started on Whirlpool around this here:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1325342
This is a great article just illustrating the power of waffle by the right people
this is also an indication of the despicable state of some of the operators and the culture in them
John Sharp is an idiot who should hang his head in shame especially when it is considered what his career has involved . This obvious violation of protocol that is strictly laid out in detail so that there are no grey areas
I listened to Channel 7 this mornimg and could not believe what I was hearing
I have been in this industry for 40 years and seen and heard some things but this takes the cake
Well done Ben
If CASA whitewash this one like so many other ones I will not be surprised
gfr
Well done Ben, so far you are the only one to see through the trees to the forest. Isolated airfield = fuel to an Alternate.
Interesting to read the various news reports extensively justifying the lack of fuel (see link below), and hailing the pilot as a hero. Quite remarkable.
Thanks Ben for the analysis. As a passenger I had taken air safety in Australia (and the rigours of CASA) as a given, so it will be very interesting to see what happens from here!!
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,26375314-948,00.html
A question – how much does fuel cost in Apia as compared to Norfolk Island!
Catman,
The real question is according to pilots who have called me, how much does fuel cost in Nouméa, which is the logical alternate airport to Norfolk Island. The answer is, much, much more than anywhere else in that corner of the Pacific. Everywhere else in this region is by comparison, a bargain.
Ben,
Even the high cost of fuel at Tontouta is a bargain when compared with the cost of a hull sitting on the bed of the Pacific Ocean!
Cheers, Ken
There are only three rules in basic aviation; fuel in the ground, runway behind you and sky above, well I suppose they considered they left with some fuel ,but alas not enough, they certainly came close to the ground but not close enough as only 1 person has ever walked on water and runway behind them well we will be kind, they had it in front of them they just did not quite make it. Luckily for the skipper they all surviverd to tell of their escapade and I’m sure they will stop to buy the fuel and taxi out with every drop of kero next time if given that chance. One has to admire their rescuers that they had the sense to act swiftly and prudently.
One Trackback