Accident causes, training and Raa Aus responses

[Guest davidh10]

...That raises the question of was RAAus complying with its ops manual, which I believe calls for there to be a senior person in charge of all flying. Something which is seldom complied with, because it is a senseless requirement. Interesting thought though!

IMHO, that is a misinterpretation of Sect 4.01. If you read the rest of the section the context appears to be ensuring that any airfield has some form of responsible manager. An "Airfield Manager" is not a pseudo police officer to direct traffic and write parking tickets, but rather to ensure that the airfield has appropriate operating rules and to take appropriate action where people fail to comply.

I don't think it is written very well, as it fails to take into account fields with appointed managers who may be other than RAA members or fields with GA as well as RAA schools or fields with only a GA school.

 

In any case, the appropriate action would be to talk with non-complying pilots to persuade them or educate them with regard to their infringing activity. In cases where that was not possible and the seriousness required it, a report to the RAA Operations Manager would be appropriate. None of this implies that anyone should try and read minds or interrogate pilots as to their intentions before they start their engine.

 

I don't think it has any relevance to the subject of this thread, however it is a point worth making in the thread on what you would like changed in the Ops manual.

 

 

[Clearprop]

"The readiness to blame a dead pilot for an accident is nauseating, but it has been the tendency ever since I can remember. What pilot has not been in positions where he was in danger and where perfect judgment would have advised against going? But when a man is caught in such a position he is judged only by his error and seldom given credit for the times he has extricated himself from worse situations. Worst of all, blame is heaped upon him by other pilots, all of whom have been in parallel situations themselves, but without being caught in them. If one took no chances, one would not fly at all. Safety lies in the judgment of the chances one takes."

 

— Charles Lindbergh, journal entry 26 August 1938, published in The Wartime Journals, 1970.

 

 

[K-man]

"The readiness to blame a dead pilot for an accident is nauseating, but it has been the tendency ever since I can remember. What pilot has not been in positions where he was in danger and where perfect judgment would have advised against going? But when a man is caught in such a position he is judged only by his error and seldom given credit for the times he has extricated himself from worse situations. Worst of all, blame is heaped upon him by other pilots, all of whom have been in parallel situations themselves, but without being caught in them. If one took no chances, one would not fly at all. Safety lies in the judgment of the chances one takes."— Charles Lindbergh, journal entry 26 August 1938, published in The Wartime Journals, 1970.

I think that times have changed but some things remain the same. Yes, we are blaming he pilot, not only because he ignored the rules but that his lack of judgement cost another person her life. In 1938 a lot of flying was "seat of the pants" type flying. I don't know what regulations were in place but one could assume there was a lot of flying in fog and cloud and probably in other conditions that now would be way outside VFR.In 1938 perhaps pilots were constantly finding themselves in hazardous situations but that is not now the case for recreational pilots. And, CL refers to 'all' other pilots having been in similar situations, something I hope few of us have done ourselves.

 

The last part rings true. "Safety lies in the judgment of the chances one takes.". Hopefully over the 70 years since CL made that statement, we have improved our understanding and training so we don't have to take chances.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I think that times have changed but some things remain the same. Yes, we are blaming he pilot, not only because he ignored the rules but that his lack of judgement cost another person her life. In 1938 a lot of flying was "seat of the pants" type flying. I don't know what regulations were in place but one could assume there was a lot of flying in fog and cloud and probably in other conditions that now would be way outside VFR.In 1938 perhaps pilots were constantly finding themselves in hazardous situations but that is not now the case for recreational pilots. And, CL refers to 'all' other pilots having been in similar situations, something I hope few of us have done ourselves.

 

The last part rings true. "Safety lies in the judgment of the chances one takes.". Hopefully over the 70 years since CL made that statement, we have improved our understanding and training so we don't have to take chances.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Charles Lindburgh did not do a human factors (HF) course as his amazing (but risky*) exploits predates the HF curriculum. HF has brought together the many decades of adverse pilot experiences from which we can learn in order to avoid those nasty experiences ourselves.

 

*I consider flying 33-1/2 hours non-stop in an aircraft with no front window to be risky piloting.

 

 

[Bluey]

It's one thing to take excessive risks in wartime where the threat of death comes from an enemy. It's another to do it in peace time for recreation.

 

Bluey.

 

 

[K-man]

The HF course just put common sense to paper. As we all know, common sense is much less common than we would like to believe. Even when we complete the HF course, it still doesn't compute. We know that it's there for all the 'other people'. It doesn't apply to 'us'. If it did we wouldn't be taking off just before last light.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

It's one thing to take excessive risks in wartime where the threat of death comes from an enemy. It's another to do it in peace time for recreation.Bluey.

Interestingly, I have been reading the RAAF OHS system (RAAFsafe) and even in time of war, mission risks have to be assessed and judgements made as to whether target priorities justify the increased risk inherent in the mission. Missions are to be designed / planned so as to remove, mitigate or minimise unnecessary risks.

 

 

[Camel]

Old saying, "don't take an aeroplane anywhere you haven't been 5 minutes earlier in your head".

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Im no historian, but what war was on in 1938?

 

 

[facthunter]

Spain and China. (but that's not what you are driving at)..Nev

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Also Orson Welles "War of the Worlds"!

 

 

[Bandit12]

If the RAA does safety reviews, accident investigations etc. it will only mean more deaths.

Perhaps this needs to be elaborated a little - I try to keep an open mind but I really can't see how safety reviews and accident investigations equate to more deaths. Poorly conducted reviews may not be that beneficial, and investigation results that aren't released don't help others to learn, but how d more deaths come from RAA conductiong the reviews and investigations?

 

Your safety is always your own responsibility.

I agree, but that seems a little at odds with what you mentioned above.

 

How many are happy with the quality of RAA pilots?

Of all the speculation into this accident, I haven't heard anyone attribute it to the quality of RAA pilots....I'm sure that RAA can improve in plenty of areas, but I secretly suspect that quality wasn't an issue in this case.

 

 

[Bluey]

This accident had nothing to do with the pilots ability to control his aircraft. It had everything to do with the pilots ability to make sound and safe choices. This was most likely a human factors failure. The only way to avoid these sort of scenarios is to have a good peer group that look out for each other and aren't afraid to jump in and say hey that isn't a good idea. In the end though, it is up to the pic to make the right choices. However, in this case I have a feeling nobody could have made a difference to this pilots attitude and the sad outcome that we're all still discussing.

 

Bluey.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Perhaps this needs to be elaborated a little - I try to keep an open mind but I really can't see how safety reviews and accident investigations equate to more deaths. Poorly conducted reviews may not be that beneficial, and investigation results that aren't released don't help others to learn, but how d more deaths come from RAA conductiong the reviews and investigations?

A good investigation can be very expensive, a quick investigation won't. Consider the recent case of the Zodiac 601xl's that took some serious balls on behalf of the FAA to ground those planes. And the people that objected the most where those that where most likely to benefit, owners and manufacturers.

 

 

[Bluey]

From my experience in dealing with a number of different instructors over the past few years, I have noticed that there is plenty of focus on the necessary flying skills a pilot needs to be safe before being sent solo. However, there appears to be a lesser focus on the skills a pilot needs to develop good airmanship. In fact, I have found the training in this area rather lacking. Part of the problem is the way in which the RAA and HGFA audit individual flying schools. From what I have observed there is little if any scrutiny that goes on unless an incident takes place (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

While each respective organisation has its own training syllabus, the implimentation of the respective syllabus doesn't appear to be well audited. I can't recall the last time an instructor I know complained about having their training records inspected or programs scrutinised.

 

Good airmanship needs to be explicitly taught as the flying environment and decision making process is not mirrored in other areas of ordinary life for most of us.

 

Also, it is critical to the development of good flying and airmanship skills that new pilots are mentored well beyond their flight training hours.

 

Bluey.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

In fact, I have found the training in this area rather lacking. Part of the problem is the way in which the RAA and HGFA audit individual flying schools. From what I have observed there is little if any scrutiny that goes on unless an incident takes place (please correct me if I'm wrong).While each respective organisation has its own training syllabus, the implimentation of the respective syllabus doesn't appear to be well audited. I can't recall the last time an instructor I know complained about having their training records inspected or programs scrutinised.

Bluey.

I can tell you that the RAA are very thorough when auditing schools. The syllabus is spelled out in no uncertain terms in the ops manual, and while each school may have their own way of going about it, the syllabus has to be followed.

 

That being said, there are oils and there are oils (so to speak).

 

Your last point is very poignant. It isn't students who are pranging (generally) its pilots, and in alot of cases, experienced pilots. Some could argue that airmenship has not been instilled to the degree neccasary to ensure a long uneventful flying career. And thats probably a valid argument.

 

I have said it other threads and ill offer it again. Airmenship is not something that can be taught and tested. Its an attitude that ALL training should be built on as the base,as the foundations. Its not a seperate subject, its not in a book. Its should be the underlying principle which ALL training is filtered through. To forget airmenship is to forget how to fly.

 

cheers

 

 

[fly_tornado]

MM, you seem to think that all RAA schools maintain standards once the RAA finish the audits, my experience is that is not the case. Every corner is cut eventually although not at the same time.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

MM, you seem to think that all RAA schools maintain standards once the RAA finish the audits,

Where exactly did I say that? Has your experience lead you to take it up with the RAA? If you know of dodgy operations, all the corners being cut, then speak up.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Can you cure a disease by treating the symptoms?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Can you cure it with cliche's and sprooking on a forum? I take it your answer to my previous question is no. It seems we have an abundance of problem identifiers and no problem solvers.

 

If you have solid proof that ALL RAA schools cut ALL corners, then bring it to the people who can make a difference.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You work in a flying school, How would stop a flying school cutting corners in regards to student safety. Say stopping schools flying students on very windy days?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

No flying on windy days. Got it, I'll write that down. Thanx for the insight, are wr cured now?

 

 

[Bandit12]

You work in a flying school, How would stop a flying school cutting corners in regards to student safety. Say stopping schools flying students on very windy days?

I don't work in a flying school, and even I can give you one simple reason to stop students flying when it is very windy (beyond their abilities) - because one damaged aircraft means less training can be provided while the aircraft is out of action, leading to economic losses. That is basic business sense, and I didn't touch on bad publicity or expenses due to injuries, death, litigation, or personal impact.

 

Did a school send you out when it was more windy than you felt comfortable in? Or is this really just a hypothetical like the other claims?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem with the way the RAA works is that everyone stands back and says not my problem. The pilots killed in the trike must have had some contact with a flying school over the last few years. Surely the schools can do something to improve safety.

 

Flying in windy weather is a simple example of how schools can cut corners to maintain profitability.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The problem with the way the RAA works is that everyone stands back and says not my problem.

So what have YOU done to solve the problem?. You apparently have facts regarding"corner cutting".. Who's problem is that?.. Someone elses? When you point the finger, remember, theres 3 pointing back.(cliche day)

 

Regarding flying in windy weather, all students need exposure to less than perfect conditions while under supervision from instructors or at least while flying with an instructor. Duty of care extends beyond keeping you safe while you are flying with the school. There is a fine line between too windy and good training weather.