Some very big issues are now circling the ditching of a very small jet, a Pel-Air Westwind, off Norfolk Island while doing a CareFlight medivac from Apia to Melbourne on Wednesday night.

They include failures of public administration in the awarding of state contracts, a prima facie breach of Australian air safety regulations, the future of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and a clear risk to public safety.

Forget the media foolishness about Cleo bachelor hero pilot saves lives, or the former federal transport minister John Sharp making gravely serious admissions of incompetency by the air service he chairs while trying to air-brush the incident to clueless reporters.

The captain, Dominic James, apparently took off from Apia with inadequate fuel to meet the requirements of the catch-all section of Civil Aviation Order CAO 82.0 (2.4), which relates to fuel reserves. The relevant regulations are appended to this report (after the jump).

James and his airline must be prosecuted. The airline must be audited and required to justify continued holding of an air operator certificate or AOC.

For an Australian AOC holder to persist with a flight to a refuelling stop at Norfolk Island without adequate reserves or flight planning, if proven, is derelict. John Sharp admits there was no “plan B” and that the plane ditched without a Mayday call in the Tasman Sea in darkness — an example of incomprehensible stupidity and unprofessional conduct.

The two pilots, two Care Flight medical staff, the injured person and her spouse, were in the sea for up to 90 minutes. It is unclear if there were enough life jackets for all of them, but only three were worn.

Pel-Air is owned by REX, the regional carrier, which is controlled by its major shareholder and chairman Lim Kim Hai. It has won major medical aviation contracts previously held by the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Victoria this year, and is poised to take the NSW contract off the RFDS in the near future, much to the concern of people such as the member for Dubbo, Dawn Fardell.

The loss of these contracts has serious implications for the RFDS and the public even before the Norfolk Island ditching. Earlier this month Pel-Air was awarded a three-year ADF contract authorising it to carry personnel and equipment at home and abroad for three years.

REX then posted this statement:

Commenting on the tender outcome, Pel-Air Director Mr Jim Davis said: “The award by ADF is recognition that Pel-Air is part of an elite group of air charter brokers in Australia that can be trusted to plan and organise complex military air movements of troops and equipment to wherever they are needed. We will be using the specialist division in Pel-Air called RexJet Executive Charter that has years of experience in all sorts of air charter including medical evacuations, mining Fly-In/Fly-Out operations, executive charters and troop movements.”

In fact, it would have been impossible for the ADF to recognise any of the qualities Davis mentions. It is all about lowest price, and zero diligence on the part of the ADF, as it is with the state medical aviation contracts.

There are clear precedents for action in the interests of public safety to be taken by CASA, the most striking of which was its temporary grounding of Ansett’s aged 767 fleet in April 2001 because of its negligence to maintain emergency door slides in working order and failing to correct cracking that was occurring in engine pylon wing joints.

At the time CASA feared there would be a major crash of an Ansett airliner because of the wilful neglect of maintenance. CASA and the current minister for tansport, Anthony Albanese, would surely be mindful of the consequences of letting Pel-Air get away with the operational standards implied by Wednesday night’s near disaster.

Will they act now, or after the next crash?

EXTRACT FROM CAO 82.0:

1 Application

1.1 This Part applies to Air Operators’ Certificates authorising aerial work operations, charter operations and regular public transport operations and sets out conditions to which such certificates are subject for the purposes of …

And:

remote island means:

(a) Christmas Island; or

(b) Lord Howe Island; or

(c) Norfolk Island.

And:

2.3 The minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island is:

(a) the minimum amount of fuel that the aeroplane should carry on that flight, according to the operations manual of the aeroplane’s operator, revised (if applicable) as directed by CASA to ensure that an adequate amount of fuel is carried on such flights; or

(b) if the operations manual does not make provision for the calculation of that amount or has not been revised as directed by CASA — whichever of the amounts of fuel mentioned in paragraph 2.4 is the greater.

2.4 For the purposes of subparagraph 2.3 (b), the amounts of fuel are:

(a) the minimum amount of fuel that will, whatever the weather conditions, enable the aeroplane to fly, with all its engines operating, to the remote island and then from the remote island to the aerodrome that is, for that flight, the alternate aerodrome for the aircraft, together with any reserve fuel requirements for the aircraft; and

(b) the minimum amount of fuel that would, if the failure of an engine or a loss of pressurisation were to occur during the flight, enable the aeroplane:

(i) to fly to its destination aerodrome or to its alternate aerodrome for the flight; and

(ii) to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 1500 feet above that aerodrome under standard temperature conditions; and

(iii) to land at that aerodrome.