BOLLOCKS !....
Most refreshing to see and hear Sen. McDonald taking up the cause of those on the Torres Strait. Those unfortunates now without a 'safe' reliable air service, reduced to 'travel by tinnie'. Not certain I could do the maths required to compare the 'risk analysis' matrix between being on the open ocean in a 'tinnie', powered by a 16 hp Yamaha two stroke, for four or so hours, as opposed to a 15 minute exposure (average) flight in an aircraft powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT6 (a benchmark amongst the most reliable turbine engines ever made). That an air service system which has never lost a life in 30 odd (probably plus) years is 'suddenly' unsafe, based on a factored number of feet/ yards/ metres needed – without a serious 'at risk time line' being analysed.
But its the purblind 'stupidity' (lack of operational savvy) of the CASA analysis which winds my clock. The 'time at risk' analysis makes a mockery of the CASA assertions. They are waffling on about some 'factored' runway length – on the safely stop – safely go ratios for aircraft with 'scheduled' performance capability. The real facts are that the time span of actual risk, compared to the reliability of the PT6; and, the Asepta safety margin; and, the forced landing areas; and, the percentage chances of an engine and brake failure on even a marginal strip at Charter flight factors are very much less than my chances of winning $100 million on lotto. There is an established, proven, tried and tested safe system in place, so why are those folks now placed at serious risk in shark and croc infested waters – travelling in small boats. It is unmitigated BOLLOCKS.
![[Image: D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg)
Most refreshing to see and hear Sen. McDonald taking up the cause of those on the Torres Strait. Those unfortunates now without a 'safe' reliable air service, reduced to 'travel by tinnie'. Not certain I could do the maths required to compare the 'risk analysis' matrix between being on the open ocean in a 'tinnie', powered by a 16 hp Yamaha two stroke, for four or so hours, as opposed to a 15 minute exposure (average) flight in an aircraft powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT6 (a benchmark amongst the most reliable turbine engines ever made). That an air service system which has never lost a life in 30 odd (probably plus) years is 'suddenly' unsafe, based on a factored number of feet/ yards/ metres needed – without a serious 'at risk time line' being analysed.
But its the purblind 'stupidity' (lack of operational savvy) of the CASA analysis which winds my clock. The 'time at risk' analysis makes a mockery of the CASA assertions. They are waffling on about some 'factored' runway length – on the safely stop – safely go ratios for aircraft with 'scheduled' performance capability. The real facts are that the time span of actual risk, compared to the reliability of the PT6; and, the Asepta safety margin; and, the forced landing areas; and, the percentage chances of an engine and brake failure on even a marginal strip at Charter flight factors are very much less than my chances of winning $100 million on lotto. There is an established, proven, tried and tested safe system in place, so why are those folks now placed at serious risk in shark and croc infested waters – travelling in small boats. It is unmitigated BOLLOCKS.