[Peetwo]

Blind Freddy could join these dots -

Following on from the excellent "K" Sunday rant, I note that Senator Xenophon has a QON that is very much related to the 16+ year continuously obfuscated safety issue:

QON 192 - Senator XENOPHON: I go to the issue of the 22 February 2000 Bureau of Meteorology report about the reliability of Norfolk Island forecasts. Did your first report and does the subsequent report that you have been asked to do in relation to the Pelair incident take into account the fact that those matters do not appear to have been followed through by other agencies in terms of the lack of reliability on the Norfolk Island weather forecasts?


Mr Dolan: Mr Walsh is supervising the reopened investigation.


Mr Walsh: Can I clarify the question. Are we looking at the reliability or are we looking—


Senator XENOPHON: No, there was a report issued on 22 February 2000 about the reliability of Norfolk Island forecasts. It appears that certain things were not followed through. I would like to put it to your agency that it appears that down the chain there were things that were not followed through as a result of the very clear report on the lack of reliability. Was that something that was taken into account with respect of the first investigation report on the Pelair incident and also now with the second report that is being considered?


Mr Walsh: I cannot speak to the first investigation because I was not involved. In the second one, I would have to actually take it on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps you could take that on notice in relation to the first report. I go now to the issue of the LAHSO operations. There is a report being undertaken in respect of the 5 July incident 2015. Do you have an approximate time line of when that report will be completed? 

However we may finally have some progress on possibly proactively addressing a safety issue that was identified 16 odd years ago and then again some six + years ago in the ATSB PelAir preliminary report.
The following is an excerpt from the February CASA Briefing:

Changes proposed to fuel rules

An update is proposed for the regulatory requirements for carrying sufficient fuel and oil on aircraft.  Comments are being sought on a package of proposals to change the fuel and oil regulations, introduce a new legislative instrument and revise a civil aviation advisory publication.  CASA is proposing the changes following revised international fuel practices and policies from the International Civil Aviation Organization, along with Australian Transport Safety Bureau research into fuel related occurrences.  The proposal is to repeal the existing set of fuel and oil regulations and to create separate regulatory sets for fuel and oil.  Until the new operational Parts of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation become effective, these provisions would be contained in 234 and 234A of the Civil Aviation Regulations.  A new instrument would then prescribe the fuel-related requirements - setting out mandatory fixed fuel reserve and variable fuel reserve quantities, closely based on the current guidelines.  The instrument would also cover matters to be considered when determining if an aircraft is carrying sufficient fuel, the amounts of fuel to be carried, the procedures for monitoring fuel quantity during a flight and the procedures to be followed if fuel reaches a specified lower limit during a flight. 

In addition, the proposed instrument would introduce minor amendments to the existing fuel regulations, mandating a variable fuel reserve of at least five minutes on short duration charter and regular public transport flights.  The instrument would cover fuel requirements for pressurisation and engine failures and introduce additional fuel requirements.  CASA has sought to balance the operational, cost and environmental requirements to reduce unnecessary fuel uplift without compromising safety.

Find out more about the fuel proposals and comment before 16 March 2016.

  
This bit..
"..CASA is proposing the changes following revised international fuel practices and policies from the International Civil Aviation Organization, along with Australian Transport Safety Bureau research into fuel related occurrences..."

...what a load of bollocks

So will this proposed CASA action actually address the issue of the reliability of BOM forecasts?

From the AO-2012-073 final report...

"...The occurrence also highlights that during a flight, the forecast weather at the destination may change and it is advisable to obtain the most up-to-date weather forecasts.

However, pilots should be alert to the fact that the actual weather can differ significantly from forecasts..."

...and from the contributing factors section...

"...The weather forecast for Perth Airport was amended to include the requirement to carry sufficient fuel to divert to a suitable alternate aerodrome when the aircraft no longer had that amount of fuel remaining..."


 ...I would say not even close, all it will do is yet again slate the blame 100% on the PIC -

MTF...P2