Four Corners tonight

[shafs64]

This can carry over into our jobs. boss asks you to work on the weekend with no penalty rates. you say no he sacks you and get someone cheaper. round and round we go

 

 

[farri]

This can carry over into our jobs. boss asks you to work on the weekend with no penalty rates. you say no he sacks you and get someone cheaper. round and round we go

The big difference is, the worst that can happen there is you`ve lost your job! Loose the the aircraft and everyone in it goes with it.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I wouldn't depend on CASA for sensible precautionary regulations. Just heard a segment on the radio about the first black box - invented by an Australian - CASA (or whoever the regulatory body was in 1957) couldn't see a use for this technology and didn't want to pay the 2000 pounds to patent it. So the guy goes to England where they immediately recognise the value and snap it up. Then when a judge in Australia mandates that all civilian airliners have a CVR, what do we do? Buy an inferior version from the USA that doesn't actually work, because no-one in government would believe that Australia could develop anything better than the US.

 

 

[shafs64]

The big difference is, the worst that can happen there is you`ve lost your job! Loose the aircraft and everyone in it goes with it.Frank.

In the lip service world of airlines and lots of companies. when they say that safety comes first. we all know what the truth is. And we can all say that the pilot should refuse to fly and make command decisions. But last time I looked pilots eat and have bills.

 

 

[poteroo]

When I flew my very 1st commercial charter job, (in a beaten up C185), I was given the load sheet with all the weights by compartment. Spotted that, apart from the 45 mins fixed reserve, there was the mandatory 15% of flight fuel there as 'variable' reserve. All very well I thought - kick the tyres and light the fires....we're off. On the way out the door, one of the old hands pulled me aside for a quick bit of advice. 'Mate', he said, 'your fuel here is calculated on a block speed of 120kts - which that clapped out old 185, at full gross weight, flying at 8500, is just never going to achieve'. He continued 'and, the weather up here is not friendly - you'll rarely get anywhere in the company calculated time, so that's why we have this arrangement with the refueller to top us up with an extra hours fuel - better to be overweight,than out of noise'

 

Of course I knew better than this decrepit old 'has been' - so blasted off into the tropical clouds. I got back with 14L remaining in the 298L tanks! The gauges sat on E for the last 15 mins. Never, ever again did I ever depart with less than an extra hours fuel onboard. And when we were all ramp checked by DCA,(CASA in an earlier iteration), we were invariably cautioned for overload, but commended on our 'prudence' in carrying fuel instead of freight as the overload.

 

Ben, being a lowly newbie CPL is a tough gig, and you need to think about your job security. But, a bit of extra fuel goes a long way toward your safety. Most Cessnas will carry a 15% gross weight overload for ferry flying, so don't sweat the weight v strength issue. If management insists on minimum fuel uplift, then you need to take responsibility for your own refuelling and make sure that minimum allows for unforeseens. happy days,

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Most Cessnas will carry a 15% gross weight overload for ferry flying, so don't sweat the weight v strength issue. ,

Poteroo, your post could be interpreted to be offering advice to a new commercial pilot to not worry about going up to 15 percent overweight because people do that on a ferry flight. In a C206 that could be 240 kgs. You may have the experience to get away with this but shouldn't we be encouraging all pilots to make safe legal decisions without needing to go above MTOW? The more pilots that stand up to the dodgy operators the safer we will all be.

 

 

[ben87r]

So the story that I used was trying (maybe badly lol) to point out that even tho I was legal, if I had of run out of fuel for any reason (strict liability) it would have been my fault. I don't feel that there was a safety concern on the day otherwise I would have diverted. IF the arerodrome had of been US due a disabled AC for example, I would have got drilled even tho I had complied with all regs.

 

To note, I am under no pressure at any time to carry less then the regulated required fuel and if there is excess payload I'm under no pressure to carry min fuel to save money because in a piston it makes little difference. And I would get shot by the boss if I was to use less than the min. BUT part of being a pilot is being able to maximise payload/range so if it is legal to depart in both WX/fuel then it is reasonably expected that you will but not expected that you will out fly your capacity in regard to WX.

 

Also, aircraft performance is usually more of an issue here with very high DA's short strips and wind shear an every day occurrence so normally the safer option in my opinion with our flying would be less fuel. That normally for me would be min fuel + 15-20min depending on how I'm feeling and the length of the flight, we usually burn about 2lph under what we plan and that is above the required VRB reserve.

 

The thing with the Pel flight is he DID as I do and carried all fuel that was required on the weather that he planned his flight on and if my memory serves me correct, wasn't till after his PNR that he received updated and deteriorated weather, so there was nothing that he could do.

 

Now with CASA's hindsight they have said that he should have carried more fuel, kinda like saying that we all need to carry full tanks when it's CAVOK incase a firestorm hits and in that case it would be safer. IF that is the case then it should have been regulated like that in my opinion OR leave the pilot alone as he was legal, had all required fuel based on the wether at his PNR so continued. Now it is a while since I watched the first one so might watch it again tonight as some of that might be wrong.

 

 

[ben87r]

Somehow I think we're all trying to say the same thing here just backwards!!

 

 

[ben87r]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/30/3579404.htm

 

For anyone else interested that may not have seen it

 

 

[ozbear]

One thing I did notice in the underwater pics is the landing gear appears to be down if so it makes the ditching even more amazing ,it could have been released in the crash.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Good chance you will burn most of the overweight off before your first landing and the take off would probably be done at base on a longish runway. i'd go the overweight in fuel.