issues of concern across the industry where they may exist and what "we" the RAA community can do to

[fly_tornado]

So have any RAA techs ever lost there privileges due to unairworthy repairs?

 

 

[sain]

Thanks David and djpacro...

 

FT I can't see RAA not yanking the privileges from a tech if they felt the need. Didn't they even shut down a flying school up in QLD? anybody who remebers/knows details care to comment?

 

 

[dazza 38]

So has anyone every heard of the RAA punishing anyone for breaches of its rules? They certainly don't seem to publish any information about the day to day running of the association.David I suggest you can deal with other peoples issues with the RAA as I am not interested in taking the matter any further.

Yes mate.There was a bloke who used to do Aeros in a Jabiru.People including me, watched him do it at Watts Bridge.This was around 1997/1998. He lost his certificate, and from memory fined.

 

 

[David Isaac]

So David does 2 pilots seem like a little or a lot given the size of the membership? Is that 2 pilots this year or since whenever?

FT, they are the only two pilots that I have personal knowledge of the circumstances; and I agree that two is nothing in the scale of membership.

I have heard of others though, but cannot comment as I have no personal knowledge. More recent posts since my last appear to confirm there have been many other incidents of suspension / cancellation. However, I doubt that RA Aus has legislative power to apply punitive measures as I see nothing in the legislation other than in the CARs that has a punitive capacity and that would require prosecution by CASA I would have thought.

 

DJPacro, you in all probability may understand that structure and may wish to comment.

 

 

[David Isaac]

So folks, moving on:

 

Lets look at a hypothetical situation in say a flight training facility (FTF). What should we do if we observe dangerous practices at a FTF?

 

Lets say look at a couple of possible examples that could apply to any FTF.

 

1. Aircraft regular overloading, going on Navs overloaded or obviously overweight instructor and student for a given aircraft type.

 

2. Aerobatic manoeuvrings in training ( a controversial issue).

 

3. Incidents e.g. hard landings involving damage that go unreported to RA Aus

 

4. Unsafe practices such as inadequate pre-flight checking, unsafe refueling practices, inadequate or inappropriate repairs or minimum equipment serviceability.

 

5. Issues of disagreement on training adequacy, techniques or methodologies.

 

That ought to do it to start with as any of these could happen at a FTF.

 

So some or one of these is noticed by a few and a few talk among themselves about it ... but what should they do at that point? What do we collectively as the RAA community think we should do about such issues especially where letting it go unreported could conceivably lead to death or injury in the future?

 

 

[P4D]

David

 

Every hypothetical you propose is based on an observers individuals value judgement as to the merit or otherwise of the performance. It would be most unwise to opine on these matters without some supporting credential.

 

 

I strongly believe in the confidential reporting system. The voracity of information will be properly tested by impartial and independent EXPERTS.

 

 

Additionally there has been several mischievous posts here intimating further regulatory breaches without specificity. Anyone in these forums withholding information from an office bearer that may prevent financial or physical harm is doing a great disservice to our community and should initiate the anonymous service offered to them

 

 

[Chird65]

Lets look at a hypothetical situation in say a flight training facility (FTF). What should we do if we observe dangerous practices at a FTF?....

So some or one of these is noticed by a few and a few talk among themselves about it ... but what should they do at that point? What do we collectively as the RAA community think we should do about such issues especially where letting it go unreported could conceivably lead to death or injury in the future?

David,

 

I thought I would check. I went to the Operations manual, it states in part that we are bound by the CARs and other operations as stated by CASA.

 

See section 4.08 of our associations Operations manual.

 

This is normally pretty easy as we are GA and just operate under some exemptions.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

David,

I thought I would check. I went to the Operations manual, it states in part that we are bound by the CARs and other operations as stated by CASA.

 

See section 4.08 of our associations Operations manual.

 

This is normally pretty easy as we are GA and just operate under some exemptions.

That is pretty easy if you are a participant. For an incidental observer, a lot of the required information is possibly not available.

 

I would have thought that the first approach, if possible, should be to the CFI of the FTF to ask an innocent question, indicating your perception of the situation and seeking an explanation. That may reveal that you are mistaken or if not, will give some insight to the attitude of the CFI.

 

The next step, as has been published in the RAA magazine on several occasions, is to phone the Operations Manager and discuss your observations. The Operations Manager can then make his own inquiries. In the article, he indicated that he preferred to take that route, rather than receiving the first call from CASA.

 

I have also heard stories of several pilots losing their licenses after being reported for serious infringements, however I do not know any details except that some were RAA and some GA.

 

 

[old man emu]

FT,

 

How can there be a reasonable debate if the debaters will not answer a simple question the answer to which will enlighten others. I apologise for not living in your pocket and being privy to everything that happens to you, but if you want to make reference to some situation that not all of us are aware of, then it seems only fair that you provide expand on that reference. You do not have to name names. I was prepared, in this debate, to raise two incidents that I am aware of, and did so without naming names.

 

Outline what it is that has upset you, and we might be able to work from there. Otherwise, and I say this full of trepidation of the flak it might draw, that you are coming across as one who would rather whinge than resolve. I dearly hope that I am wrong, so please show me that I am.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I'm trying to win a debate, use David's example.

 

woops I meant NOT trying to win an argument. sorry I pinched my thumb in the rivet gun and my typing isn't 100%.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I'm trying to win a debate, use David's example.

FT, once again that is not correct.

In Google type "define debate" and see what pops up:-

 

What I got was:-

 

Noun:

 

A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

 

You havent put anything forward, but broad generalities. As others have said, how can anyone respond to something that is so broad and has zero (identified) facts put before us?

 

If you are looking for a response then this is as good as it gets here:-

 

1) Has RAA taken punative action against pilots in the past: Answer Yes, are these things published when they occur, No, can anyone guage whether RAA is doing enough or not, yes CASA can because they have a stake in the outcomes. You and I have a stake only insomuch as it might affect our future freedoms. Fortunately as saifd before RAA is our governing body and deserve our support, up until we vote them out, the new team then deserve our support again!

 

2) Has anything been said that would infer that RAA wont take punative action against pilots in the future: Answer No. (so get off that dead horse!!, your doing it again, you are doing more damage to our organisation with this childish crusade than the cowboys you are tilting at, but cant define!)

 

3) Has RAA ever shutdown FTF's, Answer Yes, I recall hearing about a travelling FTF that was shutdown due to cowboy/unairworthy aircraft. I believe that legal proceedings followed and seem to recall there was a custodial sentance applied. Obviously RAA doesnt do that, but CASA can and will when RAA work in concert with them. Again was it broadly published......I seem to recall that there was some publishing but not until the criminal case finalised and appeals were ruled out.

 

4) Have Aircraft been grounded, Answer Yes, Im aware of cases other than the ferris wheel related activities where RAA stepped in and formally grounded aircraft and put clearly defined steps that must occur before the grounding was lifted. Was that formally published, Not that Im aware of.... It probably obliquely made the tech managers report in a magazine at some point...

 

So, It would seem that RAA isnt afraid to step in by itself, or in concert with CASA if it deems it appropriate and in the best interests of safety and the RAA membership. Like an iceberg, most of what it does is hidden from view, but that doesnt mean that it doesnt occur.

 

Now, all that said, you saw what you saw, so, is it reasonable to expect that on your report alone action should be taken? There is no absolutes here, your report, depending on the circumstances may require immediate and significant action, where there is immediate risk of death to participants, or worse the general public, or, it may go "on file" to be added to over time such that a picture of culture becomes clear whereupon the amount of regulatory oversight for the FTF is likely to step up. If you have reported it then your job is done. There are enough examples around if you know who to talk to and where to look that to me suggest that things arent completely broken and in any event the audit that just happened should highlight anything that is deficient.

 

I beleive that this post can properly be called an argument in a debate, a post saying RAA is broken, in about as many words is not an argument, its the verbal equivalent of a 3 yearold stamping their foot.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks for that David, we have now been given approval to fly our 24 registered Morgan Sierra as it has been TEMPORARILY re-registered as a (19) aircraft.The aircraft numbers have been changed.

Alan.

That would be a very unfair imposition if the numbers are painted on the aircraft.

 

 

[Guernsey]

That would be a very unfair imposition if the numbers are painted on the aircraft.

All is well Turbo, they are 'stick-ons '

 

Alan.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I keep telling you even though I am aware of what I consider serious breach of RAA rules and dangerous behaviour, I am not saying anything.

 

It's my opinion that if the RAA was properly auditing their operations they would have picked this up but it seems like the RAA doesn't work like that.

 

Move on guys move on.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I keep telling you even though I am aware of what I consider serious breach of RAA rules and dangerous behaviour, I am not saying anything.It's my opinion that if the RAA was properly auditing their operations they would have picked this up but it seems like the RAA doesn't work like that.

Move on guys move on.

FT you're a baiter and when you get caught out, a bleater.

 

I've been very critical of RAA at times but what you are saying here is impractical. The accident which occurred highlighted a number of shortcomings, and RAA acted very fast and very fairly. To achieve what you appear to be alluding to - having knowledge of what everyone is doing all of the time would take a network of auditors who would be traveling at our expense to every airfield most of the time and you would be looking at licence fees of thousands of dollars per year, and even then some things would slip through.

 

A lot of people have given you very fair advice on this thread, it's time you took it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The more I thought about it the more I realised that David didn't really have anything to go to the RAA or CASA about the recent incidents.

 

The more I realised if i said anything I would just end being a target for the RAA

 

 

[David Isaac]

The more I thought about it the more I realised that David didn't really have anything to go to the RAA or CASA about the recent incidents.

FT perhaps I am to blame for your misunderstanding my intent in the manner I first posted. I certainly did NOT imply that I had anything to report to CASA. I don't understand how you would draw that conclusion. I would only support going to CASA as an option of last resort.

I used the Sierra issues discovered as a result of the Old Bar incident as an example and then went on to say “there are many more issues than the example I have given ….”. My intent was to challenge us as the RAA community to discuss on this thread hypothetically how we should handle ‘known / perceived ’ issues … should we turn a blind eye … should we do something else. I have suggested we often talk about these issues among ourselves, but how many have the balls to do something.

 

Some have suggested confidential reporting and that is a valid suggestion. I was hoping discussion on the various methods would come out. Unfortunately it appears that the thread has been largely hijacked by discussion you have generated based on vague non specific allegations revealing nothing other than you would do NOTHING … so I guess in a way your answer to my initial question is that you would be one of the ‘turn a blind eye’ brigade.

 

The Gary Morgan example was used because I know there was gossip in the RAA community about aspects of the Sierra construction … did anyone ever approach Gary and discuss their concerns or make suggestions? Or is it easier to turn a blind eye and gossip about it?

 

Below is what I actually posted to start the thread.

 

We have all in the past been pretty adept at criticism (myself included), but when there is a problem perceived or otherwise, with a manufacturer, a pilot, an operator, a training organisation or our governing body, how should we approach it? Should we just talk about it among ourselves (dare I say 'bag' the organisation or individual) or should we constructively and proactively approach the organisation or individual involved?Not wishing to single out any organisation but lets take the unfortunate situation that Gary Morgan is in following the Old Bar incident; and I do not support being vindictive in any form to Gary. Hypothetically speaking, what if anything could we have been done if there were known issues pre the incident and more importantly what can we collectively do NOW to bring about an appropriate and satisfactory resolution?

 

There are many more issues than the example I have given, so lets have some constructive suggestions please. This could and should be an interesting and constructive thread; this is our industry, lets support it.

 

Let’s try and NOT name and blame on this thread, but let’s discuss real examples of issues de-identified and let’s see what we come up with in terms of constructive actions.

[dazza 38]

Guys this has IMO got out of hand.Gents here have played the game to try and get of FT to explain what his worries are which is great.I think what ever FT saw is close to home.I think he is worried that it will come back and and bite him.Thats OK FT.I will tell you something I saw when a 17 or 18 year old.Im 42 in April to give you a time line.I was at a airfield a guy was looping a Drifter at low level.Nothing wrong with the aircraft they can do it.Anyway, I was a junior burger who knew it was wrong.There where guys around me who knew alot more than I did.Anyway a few week later the Guy died doing one too many low level loops. I dont know whether people talked to him about it or not.All I think about is that he is dead.I have since then known about 7 or 8 pilots who are now dead as well from flying.They where doing the right thing.Aviation is a dangerous game,If you have some information that can help someone survive.Tell some one.Not here on a public forum.PM one of the guys here or the owner of the site or the Mods.If im leading you up the garden path.Thats OK Forget what I have just written.Cheers

 

 

[fly_tornado]

My situation is slightly different, if something bad was to happen, it would have a significant repercussions for people involved as they are licensed by the RAA. My feeling is the repercussions would affect the RAA as they are the licencing body. My personal feeling is if I say anything before anything really bad happens the people involved have been in the aviation community long enough will use there influence against me to discredit the allegations. A few other people know about what's been going on but aren't saying anything, so neither am I. If something bad happens I will say something. Its really up to the RAA to make sure their house is in order not random members like myself that are just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

 

[winsor68]

This thread has lost me... No one has anything to comment on regards my observation that Auditing has gone to the dogs in the WHOLE aviation industry????

 

 

[dazza 38]

I got your PM thank you FT. Best that we move on I think from this thread I think.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well the thread was a very sensible one, with the best of intentions, so it's best if the thread does back to its original intent.

 

 

[David Isaac]

This thread has lost me... No one has anything to comment on regards my observation that Auditing has gone to the dogs in the WHOLE aviation industry????

In principle the practise of self regulation / certification and auditing / surveillance has failed across the Australian commercial landscape, not just in aviation. Self certification has failed abysmally in the electrical industry and the building annual fire safety statements just to add two more to the list.

I have the view that it arises from the obsession of driving cost out of businesses, and doing the job as cheaply as possibly in pursuit of the highest possible margin. In some cases the margin determines survival or not. In the case of organisations responsible for surveillance and auditing, the pursuits of the bean counter looking to reduce base costs devoid of the core function or performance requirement of the business has compromised the entire function of surveillance. I have been around long enough to see this happen right across industries of all kind.

 

It wasn't that long ago that every electrical installation or alteration had to have a notice of work lodged with the electrical supply authority and an Installation Inspector would come out and inspect the work and defect notices were issued where needed. That has long since ceased and now less than 10% on installations are randomly audited. Building Annual Fire Safety Statements are signed by building owners and agents often completely devoid of their responsibility or the implications of what they are signing and in the meantime defects in the systems remain and in an emergency, the system operation would be compromised.

 

So lets look at the challenge for RA Aus where there are obviously undefined problems in our little kingdom. Some see it as the sole responsibility of RA Aus to 'discover' them and that we as the RAA community have no 'duty of care' to report them!

 

So to increase the level of surveillance will need more people which will raise the base cost of the organisation which will in turn raise the cost of subscription for the members ... so where will this lead?

 

How about this for a novel thought ... why not 'us' all take some moral compass check and consider that maybe if we adequately discharged our 'duty of care' and reported the known and quantifiable issues then RA Aus could concentrate the surveillance where it was needed and the 'good' operators would continue to operate un hassled. I know that is a novel thought but surely worth consideration or at least discussion at this thread level.

 

 

[David Isaac]

DavidEvery hypothetical you propose is based on an observers individuals value judgement as to the merit or otherwise of the performance. It would be most unwise to opine on these matters without some supporting credential.

I strongly believe in the confidential reporting system. The voracity of information will be properly tested by impartial and independent EXPERTS.

 

Additionally there has been several mischievous posts here intimating further regulatory breaches without specificity. Anyone in these forums withholding information from an office bearer that may prevent financial or physical harm is doing a great disservice to our community and should initiate the anonymous service offered to them

Thanks P4D,

I happen to agree with you where the reporter desires confidentiality.

 

There are other situations where sometimes we may find ourselves discussing particular questionable or unsafe practises; I am trying to draw discussion out as to the alternatives where say a bunch of us who may have discussed a particular issue of concern actually collectively approaching the person or organisation concerned and raising the issues directly with them. The person or organisation is first hand given the opportunity to either explain, tell us to bugger off or agree to ensure rectifying the matter. Personally I believe that should be potentially our first port of call.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Read elswhere about NSW bi election coming up your name is not on the candiates list David.