Minutes RAAus Feb 2011 Board Meeting Synopsis

[Vev]

Plain English Policy

 

A written report was tabled and discussed.

 

A motion was carried: That RA-Aus adopt a policy of having “All official communication to pilots to be available in plain English” as a formal Board policy.

 

Ian,

 

What is the scope of this... what does it cover?

 

Does this cover weather, Notam etc?

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Accident summaries are published in the magazine.If you want a full report you must wait until due process has been served especially when a fatality is involved.

The RAAus must i believe as 'duty of care' make available the full and final report to members via a seperate members only publication either every 6 months or anually. They should also be forwarded to the ATSB for publishing along with GA and commercial reports. This way statistics will be a little more accruate overall. I do not believe the full report should be published in the mag or online where the public or press have access to them.

I've been banging this drum for years & have even supplied RAAus representitives with copies of the British Microlight Aircraft Association's accident reports which are exactly what Ozzie describes - a regular insert in the magazine which goes to members only.

 

Its certainly true that RAAus as a non-statutory body has no legal powers to investigate accidents (unlike ATSB) & can only do so at the invitation of the local police. I'm not a legal professional but I can appreciate why it might be necessary to prevent material getting into the public domain which could prejudice a jury in a trial. I'm less sure about how an RAAus report of the facts on an aircraft accident could be assumed to influence a coroner. What is the "due process" for an non-fatal accident - just when the police 9or whoever) decide that there is no criminal offence involved ? Could the report not be published then ?

 

Even after the coroner has made his report its not easy to obtain copies - not all seem to be online (that I can find anyway) and they are only referenced by the deceased names. And RAAus is seemingly still resistant to publishing. They are some accident reports on the website (see http://www.raa.asn.au/accidentreports/index.html) but the most recent one is over 6 years old. The webpage also includes the startling comment "RA-Aus believes it inappropriate to publish all investigation reports in full because they are just a repetition of the same old pilot errors"

 

In both the UK and NZ, recreational aircraft are on the national register and accidents are (or at least may be) investigated by the countries equivalent of the ATSB. The reports are subsequently published see http://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/fatal_accident_reports.htm and http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins.cfm

 

IMO if pilot are still making the same mistakes we clearly aren't doing enough to prevent them.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[turboplanner]

Crezzi, see my earlier post regarding the police/RAA protocol. RAA don't have any more access to police files than you or I.

 

With the exception of journalists who manage to get a press briefing we usually hear nothing

 

In terms of helping police (other than when RAA is called for technical assistance) there is a wide variation; I once became concerned about a fatal B Double accident which police put down to excessive speed. The driver had an exceptional record, with a stint in Europe and a reputation for care, the Prime Mover was underpowered, the curve was at the top of an uphill climb, but most tellingly 90 degree skid marks on the road indicated a turntable failure resulting in lockup. I got an agreement from a US engine manufacturer to run a simulation of the last two kilometres, which would have produced an accurate corner speed, but the police officer who carrioed out the investigation flatly refused to do any work on it.

 

However, all the cases eventually tumble out of the State Coroners Offices, and RAA knows the names, so I would suggest that RAA ensures the results are sent to the office, and at that point the reports can be presented to the members to try to ensure the same accident doesn't happen again. This is not just a pipe dream, because one of the key points all Coroners are charged with is to ensure as best as possible that no one else dies from the same type of accident.

 

"RA-Aus believes it inappropriate to publish all investigation reports in full because they are just a repetition of the same old pilot errors"

 

A ridiculous statement which needs to be deleted.

 

If the accident reports are posted on the website it doesn't matter about repetition; the FAA system still allows you to find out how Buddy Holly died, if you see the reports where several people die each year at the onset of winter from flying into could, it's going to provide wider reasons to be cautious than just one isolated report, and the ATSB site has numerous cases of repetitive accidents by over-confident pilots.

 

 

[Admin]

Plain English PolicyA written report was tabled and discussed.

A motion was carried: That RA-Aus adopt a policy of having “All official communication to pilots to be available in plain English” as a formal Board policy.

 

Ian,

 

What is the scope of this... what does it cover?

 

Does this cover weather, Notam etc?

 

Cheers

 

Vev

Yes it does Vev but it is just a policy and means nothing unless someone does something like convince CASA and BOM to allow it, there is no working party to bring it on or anything else...a policy is simply 2 things...the board has agreed that if asked "What is the RAAus Policy on Weather Information for Pilots?" the reply will now be that "RAAus supports the use of Plain English....etc" and secondly, the board would support the taking of this further whether it be by a working party, lobbying, formal discussions etc.

 

 

[ave8rr]

I've been banging this drum for years & have even supplied RAAus representitives with copies of the British Microlight Aircraft Association's accident reports which are exactly what Ozzie describes - a regular insert in the magazine which goes to members only.Its certainly true that RAAus as a non-statutory body has no legal powers to investigate accidents (unlike ATSB) & can only do so at the invitation of the local police. I'm not a legal professional but I can appreciate why it might be necessary to prevent material getting into the public domain which could prejudice a jury in a trial. I'm less sure about how an RAAus report of the facts on an aircraft accident could be assumed to influence a coroner. What is the "due process" for an non-fatal accident - just when the police 9or whoever) decide that there is no criminal offence involved ? Could the report not be published then ?

 

Even after the coroner has made his report its not easy to obtain copies - not all seem to be online (that I can find anyway) and they are only referenced by the deceased names. And RAAus is seemingly still resistant to publishing. They are some accident reports on the website (see http://www.raa.asn.au/accidentreports/index.html) but the most recent one is over 6 years old. The webpage also includes the startling comment "RA-Aus believes it inappropriate to publish all investigation reports in full because they are just a repetition of the same old pilot errors"

 

In both the UK and NZ, recreational aircraft are on the national register and accidents are (or at least may be) investigated by the countries equivalent of the ATSB. The reports are subsequently published see http://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/fatal_accident_reports.htm and http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins.cfm

 

IMO if pilot are still making the same mistakes we clearly aren't doing enough to prevent them.

 

Cheers

 

John

John (Crezzi) your are correct. In both the UK and NZ all (microlight) (ultralight) aircraft are on the national registers. In NZ the accident will be investigated by the NZTAIC depending on the severity of the accident / incident. Even if the accident is non injury a pilot report is filed and that report is available to all via the web. Accident briefs are published every week and the fatal accident reports may take up to 12 months or more but are published! I have allways wondered why that because an aircraft has a different registration number the rules for publishing accident information are so different. Also why should the RAAUS register not be freely available as is the CASA register. I guess it makes it a bit more difficuilt for aerodrome owners to collect landing fees I wonder.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I'm aware of the protocol TP but your post doesn't explain to me how RAAus couldn't make a statement of the facts surrounding an accident at least after the police investigation has been completed. This doesn't require access to any "police files".

 

The situation as it stands is that, in the vast majority of cases, more information (often inaccurate) is published in the media at the time of an accident than is available from RAAus even years later. That's not the way to improve safety !

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[turboplanner]

Probably because their report has not gone to the Coroner, and with good reason at times

 

I recall one instance when clay tracks were new to speedway and a fatality occurred in Adelaide, that a Club official got up on TV and laid the blame on the Track Promoter

 

During the Coroner's hearing the track was again blamed, and footage was shown of the traveling ambulance to demonstrate how rough the track was.

 

However, when the Coroner probed he found the race car had launched before the rough area and hadn't hit the ground until after the rough area, and therefore the track surface played no part in the death.

 

Although 1 to 2 years is a long time to wait, if all reports were released when available from the coroner there would be regular data available to make flying safer.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

"RA-Aus believes it inappropriate to publish all investigation reports in full because they are just a repetition of the same old pilot errors"

 

Reading between the line here, to term a phrase, I see the above statement saying that if the reports were published in full it would show a trend of shortcomings in the current available training. That trend could be used by a clever lawyer to prove the perceived shortcomings in the current training that the RAAus provides.

 

IE the failure of the RAAus to address the high rate of repetitive accidents due to pilot error that could have been addressed by amending the training syllabus.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ozzie, without pretending to be lawyers, what you are describing started to occur in US cases in the 1970's.

 

Two that I remember were:

 

1. A married couple unhitched their semi trailer at the freight terminal and were travelling bobtail when the Prime Mover slid sideways across a wet road and collected a pole with its outboard tank. The lawyers successfully claimed that if the tank had been located between the chassis rails the fire which killed the occupants would not have occurred. I think the penalties and compensation from this accident were$19 mil.

 

2. Following a tanker rollover, the plaintiff's lawyers designed a theoretical tanker with two barrel diameters, the smaller one at the front to which the skid plate was mounted. They showed that with this design the COG was lowered to the point where the combination would not have rolled over.

 

People might also recall the Corvair rear suspension issues which made Ralph Nader famous, and the Ford Pinto fuel tank fires.

 

This was going to put the cost of motoring out of the reach of the average person, so there was some alarm which seemed to reach a watershed when Chevy pickups started to get blamed for fires resulting from fuel tanks bursting in collisions.

 

There was one very spectacular crash filmed which seemed to prove the case until very uncharacteristically General Motors decided to respond publicly, and announced they had found the Chevy in a wreckers yard in a remote State, found that it had explosive devices fitted to the tank, found the method of detonation, and were ready and willing to put all persons responsible away for a very long time.

 

The enthusiasm for this type of case, the "is there an alternative way of training/design/building/operating which would have prevented this accident and if so the plaintiff should have had the ESP to think of it" seemed to subside after that.

 

We do have a Federal Product Liability Law in Australia, but as far as I know it has never been tested.

 

As far as I know, all Public Liability laws in Australia are based on the Scottish Donoghue vs Stevenson precedent from early last century.

 

I'm always stunned how few people ever bother to read this precedent which is very simple, and almost self explanatory, when it is so easy to find on the web.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Sorry i do not see your connection between adequate pilot training to remove repetive cases of pilot error and manufacturing product liability.

 

 

[facthunter]

Adopting an active human factors involvement ahead of GA has a good look. Trouble is we could have done it a lot better. Might still happen. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Lateral thinking Ozzie, I was talking about the principle

 

Have a look at Donoghue vs Stevenson

 

Let's say there were repeating cases of people getting sick eating snails inadvertently left in soft drink bottles, then yes the lawyers would probably use prior cases against you, but realistically virtually no organization is so stupid as to lose case after case after case.

 

Where repeats happen, as in the case of the annual sacrifice to flying into non VMC, most of the reports I've read, and I was scared enough to read a lot of them refer to the pilot disregarding his training and the rules.

 

When repeat accidents do occur, and the organization is found to have a shortcoming in its procedures, such as a slack attitude to maintenance, knowingly allowing non airworthy aircraft to fly etc, the lawyers are smart enough to find the similar cases without bothering with a site like this, and from what I've seen, you usually come out of it a lot better if you have a regime of warning people of danger, issuing penalties and keeping records because it shows you were trying to exercise a duty of care. [this is not qualified legal advice]

 

 

[turboplanner]

You never know Blackrod......or E=MC2

 

 

[Bryon]

Good thing his identity is protected by **********************************

Who's identity?????

 

 

[Captain]

I could tell you Bryon but then I'd have to ******** you.

"*$*#"

 

 

[Admin]

Who's identity?????

You would have to read the Coroner's Report as posted above to know who they are referring to

 

 

[winsor68]

And why would "brian_abraham" join the site just to make that first post...?

 

 

[Admin]

It was just a spammer using a proxy ip address