Of devils and details.
P2 – “Inevitably this will bring PAIN to the next chapter of the PelAir re-cover-up investigation & DJ embuggerance, which I believe will call into question the original 24 December 2009 CAR 265 'NOTICE of SUSPENSION' decision letter to DJ... Hint - extract from that letter:
This line IMO is extremely important: "...Auckland reveals that you received a weather forecast for Norfolk Airport at 0904 UTC..."
Is it fair and reasonable to expect a CASA investigator, CASA manager, CASA decision maker and a CASA legal eagle to be concise in the use of terminology? A ‘weather forecast’ is the thing a TV station put on between advertisements. Not quite the same thing as the detailed weather analysis on which pilots rely, not only for operational ‘safety reasons’ but for ‘legal safety’ – against prosecution, for fuel miscalculations and several other fairly important items. Items such as nominating an Alternate destination; this may seem like a fairly straightforward matter – the weather at destination ‘A’ is lousy so pick an ‘Alternate’ and if a landing at ‘A’ is not possible, then proceed to ‘B’ and land there. Seems simple enough – but it ain’t. (With apologies to the purists).
1) Destination airport forecast is below acceptable minima.
The use of a ‘general term’ i.e. ‘weather forecast’ is not nearly good enough. I wonder has the ‘second’ Pel-Air report provided an in depth analysis of the legal/technical information conveyed to James (and his FO) or the application of that information to his decision process.
IMO - P7 nailed it – the 0803 from Nadi was pivotal. Auckland wouldn’t think to confirm that the flight had an update issued an hour ago – and so another strand of the safety net was broken. I digress.
Is the use of ‘sloppy’ terminology deliberate or simple ignorant laziness? – Either way, it ain’t right. But then, the cost of this whole farrago would have paid the overtime for the met observer on Norfolk for a lifetime. Why – as a safety matter – can the MO at Norfolk not be on station when a flight is scheduled? A bit of overtime would not break the bank and it would be a definite positive. But hell, that would be proactive safety in action and we can’t have that now, can we children.
Toot – toot..
P2 – “Inevitably this will bring PAIN to the next chapter of the PelAir re-cover-up investigation & DJ embuggerance, which I believe will call into question the original 24 December 2009 CAR 265 'NOTICE of SUSPENSION' decision letter to DJ... Hint - extract from that letter:
This line IMO is extremely important: "...Auckland reveals that you received a weather forecast for Norfolk Airport at 0904 UTC..."
Is it fair and reasonable to expect a CASA investigator, CASA manager, CASA decision maker and a CASA legal eagle to be concise in the use of terminology? A ‘weather forecast’ is the thing a TV station put on between advertisements. Not quite the same thing as the detailed weather analysis on which pilots rely, not only for operational ‘safety reasons’ but for ‘legal safety’ – against prosecution, for fuel miscalculations and several other fairly important items. Items such as nominating an Alternate destination; this may seem like a fairly straightforward matter – the weather at destination ‘A’ is lousy so pick an ‘Alternate’ and if a landing at ‘A’ is not possible, then proceed to ‘B’ and land there. Seems simple enough – but it ain’t. (With apologies to the purists).
1) Destination airport forecast is below acceptable minima.
a) When the onward or destination airport is not available the aircraft may depart but may not proceed beyond the Point of Safe Return Depressurised (CPD) unless the forecast for an onward airport is acceptable.
b) Acceptable Airport - an airport that has a forecast for weather conditions below the alternate minima, but at or above the landing minima for the duration of the flight being undertaken.
2) Destination airport forecast is below suitable minima.
a) When the onward or destination airport is not available the aircraft may depart but may not proceed beyond the Point of Safe Return Single Engine (CPI) unless the forecast for an onward airport becomes suitable.
b) Suitable Airport - an airport that has a forecast for weather conditions above the alternate minima for the duration of the flight being undertaken.
The use of a ‘general term’ i.e. ‘weather forecast’ is not nearly good enough. I wonder has the ‘second’ Pel-Air report provided an in depth analysis of the legal/technical information conveyed to James (and his FO) or the application of that information to his decision process.
IMO - P7 nailed it – the 0803 from Nadi was pivotal. Auckland wouldn’t think to confirm that the flight had an update issued an hour ago – and so another strand of the safety net was broken. I digress.
Is the use of ‘sloppy’ terminology deliberate or simple ignorant laziness? – Either way, it ain’t right. But then, the cost of this whole farrago would have paid the overtime for the met observer on Norfolk for a lifetime. Why – as a safety matter – can the MO at Norfolk not be on station when a flight is scheduled? A bit of overtime would not break the bank and it would be a definite positive. But hell, that would be proactive safety in action and we can’t have that now, can we children.
Toot – toot..