No life rafts over the Tasman - Another cost reduction measure?
XXX I too heard on pretty good authority that QLINK dash 8's (Sunstate + Eastern) do not carry life rafts to Lord Howe anymore due to a change in CASA regs for overwater flights
dodo whirlygig
No need to be so bitchy. As I said:
Personally I can’t remember the last time I was on a B737. Most times I have been on a QF aircraft it was a B767 or an A330.
No need to be so bitchy. As I said:
“Someone on the B737 will correct me if I’m wrong”.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep had one row of seat removed for the raft, I got roused on by the hostie for sitting in the row behind and putting my feet up on the raft.
I can't understand why CASA would not grow a pair and mandate the carriage of life rafts carte blanche for all off shore ops, if any one has a problem with that they can say "To bad cost of doing business we are CASA".
I can't understand why CASA would not grow a pair and mandate the carriage of life rafts carte blanche for all off shore ops, if any one has a problem with that they can say "To bad cost of doing business we are CASA".
Usually stored in overhead lockers on the Classics and in ceiling bins above the aisle in the NG's.
Don't you listen to the safety briefings or read the briefing card? Oh well, you're not much different to most passengers in that case.
Don't you listen to the safety briefings or read the briefing card? Oh well, you're not much different to most passengers in that case.
I guess the pretty little Air Ambulance with the pretty pilot that ditched in the warm waters off a pretty little island must have been most happy NOT to have a life raft on board. Lucky for the sharp eyes of one of the rescue team looking on the wrong side of the pretty little island.
I am sure the patient and medical crew would have appreciated a life raft. Flight crew in this case didn't deserve one due to the (how do you say idiotic in a nice way) need to not carry diversion fuel.
Guess the CASA's one in a million chance has happened and so they now feel safe for the next 999,999 over water flights.
I am sure the patient and medical crew would have appreciated a life raft. Flight crew in this case didn't deserve one due to the (how do you say idiotic in a nice way) need to not carry diversion fuel.
Guess the CASA's one in a million chance has happened and so they now feel safe for the next 999,999 over water flights.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 60
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Biggles there were 2 life rafts on board, just not enough time to get them out!
But lets not the the facts ruin a good yarn!
But lets not the the facts ruin a good yarn!
CASA is relying on this likelihood being .... vanishingly small
You are so droll, ever considered a career as a comedian.
For the benefit of others on this thread, CASA DOES NOT have to assess a risk as vanishingly small to allow a concession/variation/change of regulation.
Indeed, if the allowable residual risk criteria, after all mitigation's, was required to be "vanishingly small" there would be precisely NO aviation.
"Vanishingly small" is the statistical equivalent of zero in maths.
No aviation risk based regulatory criteria, ICAO, here or anywhere else, requires the risk to be "vanishingly small" before the operation can be authorized.
For those of you who have latched onto ALARP without understanding what what ALARP means, as opposed to what you want it to mean, please refer AS/NZ 4360:1999 or :2004.
That some airspace volumes have been quantitatively assessed ( ie: risk in the real world) in Australia, as having an actual separation assurance level, for both C and E services, of vanishingly small, does NOT IMPLY that the regulatory ( acceptable) separation assurance standard for any class of airspace is "vanishingly small".
I haven't bothered to check the latest regs. and any variations, but memory suggest that the "400 nm" bit for multi-engine aircraft hails from long time ICAO SARPS.
Indeed, the Australian development of the slide raft ( QF Safety Department, Jack Grant gets the credit) was in part a reaction to very narrow DCA "rules", and the fact that many of QF's competitors did not carry ( and suffer the cost penalties) of carrying rafts. All this back in B707/Electra days.
Tootle pip!!
"Vanishingly small" is the statistical equivalent of zero in maths.
IIRC the Flight Safety Foundation Ditching CD of a year or five ago had some interesting statistics. Most ditchings (including twin engine turbine/jet) were quite close to shore.
[sarcasm]Maybe they should be mandated for ops within 100nm of shore only? [/sarcasm]
Risk is a two fold approach - likelihood and consequence.
And on a tangent now - is it true that noone has ever survived a ditching in Bass Strait? I did hear that a while ago, but never seen the proof either way.
[sarcasm]Maybe they should be mandated for ops within 100nm of shore only? [/sarcasm]
Risk is a two fold approach - likelihood and consequence.
And on a tangent now - is it true that noone has ever survived a ditching in Bass Strait? I did hear that a while ago, but never seen the proof either way.
---the same chance of an airprox in E over Launy.
Nobody ever claimed that design separation assurance standards for Class E (or any other class) was "vanishingly small", nor was it ever claimed that the actual risk was vanishingly small over Launy.
You really do have a problem getting your facts straight, don't you.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on a tangent now - is it true that noone has ever survived a ditching in Bass Strait? I did hear that a while ago, but never seen the proof either way.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: new zealand
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on a tangent now - is it true that noone has ever survived a ditching in Bass Strait? I did hear that a while ago, but never seen the proof either way.
