Too many accidents

[facthunter]

I was extremely vocal at the time that it be tailored to our circumstances and needs and would have preferred an online course and self test. (work through it)concept. I don't profess to be an expert, John but have done a fair few of these course, done professionally. I had unpleasant abusive phone calls over this from people who should have been more responsible at the time. Some schools may have done it well under the circumstances but from where I sit it looked to be just another "box to tick" and wasn't handled in the right spirit at times... "Sort of WE have to do this so let's get it over with. No-one will fail etc" I did one at Canberra. I think the second course, which was nothing like the final form of it. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

For those that were interested in the statistics, I have run a quick analysis based on John Brandon's article that Sue posted the link to. I can make no claim for how accurate his figures are (mistakes are easily made) as I didn't go to the source documents to spend the time to pull out the raw data myself, but there is no reason to suspect that he has any errors.

 

 

Above is John's data. After checking that the data met the required assumptions, a z-score, or standardised score, was calculated for each. The graph below shows the distribution of standard scores in a box plot. Interestingly, there were no extreme scores, or as Sunfish explained, no scores which were more than 2 or 3 standard deviations from the mean. Essentially it suggests that over roughly the last decade, no year has been significantly better or worse statistically than what would be expected by chance. Of course, this doesn't cover 2012 or 2013, and the 2011 data is estimated rather than actual, but it does show the trend of nothing better or worse than normally expected (Edit: please ignore the date error in the heading below, it should have been 2011)

 

 

What does this mean for us? Well, we can't make a judgement on what has happened over the last year without a significant amount of guesswork, and that is fraught with statistical danger. It appears that we aren't seeing anything particularly out of the ordinary, and there doesn't seem to be an upwards trend by any means. This of course is little comfort to those who have lost loved ones or friends, and there is still considerable room for improvement.

 

Consider another example drawn from John's graph - is there a significant difference between GA and RA-Aus deaths per 100k flying hours? While the sample size is small, and not all of the assumptions for analysis could be met, RA-Aus average fatality rates (4.6/100K hours) were significantly higher than GA fatality rates (2.02/100K hours; only training, private and business hours included), and the effect size was very large (Eta squared = .32). What this means is that there is only about a 1.5% probability that the differences in rates is due to chance.

 

Unfortunately, there is so much useful information that could be derived statistically if the raw data was available. Is the fatality rate due to differences in training? Can't answer that, because there is no data. Is it due to crash survivability (ie perhaps accidents are happening at close to comparable rates but are more survivable in a GA aircraft)? Is it differences in maintenance? There are so many questions that could be addressed if it wasn't for the lack of information.

 

If ever there was a time for RA-Aus to step up to the plate and start investigating accidents thoroughly (fatal or not), and collating real information which can be used to look for some of the causes, now is the time. If anyone is really keen, the statistical analyses are attached as a pdf for your reading pleasure.

 

OUTPUT.pdf

 

OUTPUT.pdf

 

OUTPUT.pdf

[DGL Fox]

As a student I found the Human Factors Course that I did not to long ago was very informative and interesting, the test was easy enough if you did a bit of study before the course and our instructor didn't just give us the answers we had to work for them.

 

I personally thought that it was well worth the time and money spent and everytime I want to go and have a flying lessons I think about how I am feeling and whether I am up physically and emotionally with it enough to do what is required of me to perform as a safe pilot.

 

I might say that our instructor on the day was very good and added some laughs in there as well, that made it a lot easier to do... J

 

David

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bandit, the advantage we have is that we know the cultures so to speak and although, disgracefully, 95% of the information we get is unofficial, we communicate enough to get to the bottom of most crashes. For example we know we've had a series of unnecessary stall/spins so if we wanted to we could reduce that statistic rapidly. Your analysis also gives us direction as well. So the question really is why the RAA inertia?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Aren't John Brandon's numbers where based of RAA's overstated numbers? ie 30% more pilots than actual.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Always a possibility FT, but the stats above are for fatalities and hours flown (nothing to do with no. of pilots). I'm sure the fatalities are correct, and who knows how accurate the hours flown figures are.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its hard to gauge the accuracy of any numbers the RAA supply though, unless you can validate them through an external source.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Both GA and RA-Aus hours flown figures are self reported, so both open to error.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I was extremely vocal at the time that it be tailored to our circumstances and needs and would have preferred an online course and self test. (work through it)concept. I don't profess to be an expert, John but have done a fair few of these course, done professionally. I had unpleasant abusive phone calls over this from people who should have been more responsible at the time. Some schools may have done it well under the circumstances but from where I sit it looked to be just another "box to tick" and wasn't handled in the right spirit at times... "Sort of WE have to do this so let's get it over with. No-one will fail etc" I did one at Canberra. I think the second course, which was nothing like the final form of it. Nev

I also did a 2 day RAAus course (though happily not in Canberra) which was presumably the same ASFA Generic Pilot Proficiency Program. Despite an excellent presenter, the course material did lack a lot of relevancy to recreational flying (although it was better than some of CASA's material - they were still showing a video about a couple of RPT pilots on the last pilot seminar I attended). I think the notes for the ASFA course is still the recommended study text for the RAAus exam & I agree its probably more likely to turn people of the concepts.

 

Online courses have some merit as an educational tool but I'm not sure that they could be used by RAAus to demonstrate that a pilot meets the standard for the HF syllabus

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[dan3111]

Hi 503

 

i have been flying since late 1980'' . There was the odd ultralight pilot death year to year but rare we new the pliot but we saw a shit load of crashs every weekend which never made it to the news as a lot of flying was done out of paddocks. I have seen props come off ,wheels come off , planes that have stall turned into the ground seen them fly throw power lines and fences ground loop list goes on . The two stroke motor,s of the elary days stopped many times a year weather you liked it or no as they had points and bad cooling etc . But all those weekend after weekend of thrills and spill,s some how the pliots walked way out of the dust storm they made with there smash you never saw a fire after impacted . I have become worried over the last few years as we have increased aircraft numbers and have got better 4 stroke motors higher G rated airframes increased take of weight greater fuel load and on the limit stall speeds . But now we seemed to have decreased the number on pliots that walk away increased fire risk after impact . I have always had friends say you must have a death wish flying those,s and have away had the answers to calm them down not these days have no answers . Now over the last few years there as been quiet a few well know people i have met go in the last few Terry and Wayne which was not in a rag and tube machines and these two guys wear best of the best aerobatic high skilled pliots and where just taking off at the time nothing else like we all do . You do wonder how we can make it all a little safer .

 

cheers daniel

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

I'm looking from the outside. I have a PPL. I spent Six years as a staff engineer at Ansett in its haydays. I also worked for a few years at Hawker Dehavilland / Fishermans Bend on military and civil projects. I didn't take up recreational flying until later in life and I love it. I'm building something now and I'm doing it to as close as I can to Boeing specs. Yes it will end up heavy (mainly through sealant and paint) and it will be equipped with the best gear money can buy. I do it this way because I want to focus on flying all the time, not focussiing on whether something is going to hold together, or that niggling engine rattle, or that vibration from somewhere. I do not believe holding a PPL makes me a superior breed.

 

What gets my goat are the absolute plonkers that seem to take the RAA as an easy way out. This is not to say they aren't in GA as well, but GA has something called CASA which has big enough teeth to scare some of the plonkers sufficiently enough to try to behave. By plonkers I mean people who don't understand that safety is a state of mind.

 

The first lot of plonkers are the daredevils. Few in GA own an aircraft. It is a relatively simple matter in GA once detected to remove daredevil pilots via restricting their ability to fly via club or CASA... or they remove themselves from the population, unfortunately sometimes taking someone with them.

 

Then there are the "it costs too much" brigade that try and make do with unsuitable or badly maintained crap.

 

Then there are the "theoreticians" who repudiate a hundred years of aviation lore and design in favour of their own crackpot ideas of what constitutes safe Aviation. They won't learn because what you are trying to tell them disagrees with their own notions. They differ from true innovators and experimenters because those groups understand and manage risk actively. The Theoreticians don't even understand the risks, let alone manage them. How many times have you heard one of them opine that instrument flying "can't possibly be all that difficult"?

 

I remember seeing a powered parachute trike on a trailer in country Victoria and thinking that I wouldn't let my worst enemy fly in this. Then there was the time sitting on a verandah watching a tandem trike try and takeoff from a too short field, in the bottom of a vee shaped valley, surrounded by tall timber. after Four tries he made it and flew straight into the waiting power lines. Luckily the ground below was freshly ploughed.

 

The problem for the RAA is that you guys are the association of last resort for the pilots at the bottom of the food chain - the shallow end of the Gene pool, and I don't know how you deal with it.

 

Anyway, I'm just a boring old fart, hopefully cognisant of my aviation failings, so feel free to ignore me.

 

 

[dan3111]

Golly you know how to stir up the hornet nest . Half the crashes I have seen in AUF (RAA ) registered aircraft the pilots had both ppl and raa licences . So not sure it,s a training thing as if they have both licences they should be twice as good .

 

 

[alf jessup]

Well sunfish,

 

Your one hell of a safe pilot yourself by the sounds of it knowing too well the trike didn't have enough room to take off, so you just sat there on your verandah smoking your pipe and let him crash basically without even thinking of maybe having a word to him and trying to persuade him not to attempt the impossible.

 

Guess thats the difference between us the lower end of the food chain and real pilots who fly real planes??

 

And yes I will ignore you in the future.

 

Alf

 

 

[rgmwa]

Couldn`t let that one go! I was only 17 years old when I lost control of a horse and was thrown off at full gallop, landing directly on my neck and shoulders, I could have been killed instantly. Never rode a horse again!Rode motor bikes instead!I found that I could control motorbikes.Frank.

Same here only I was ten when I came off at full gallop and landed between the rocks. Stuck to pushbikes after that..... until I dicovered girls. That's when life really became dangerous.

rgmwa

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Then there are the "theoreticians" who repudiate a hundred years of aviation lore and design in favour of their own crackpot ideas of what constitutes safe Aviation. They won't learn because what you are trying to tell them disagrees with their own notions. They differ from true innovators and experimenters because those groups understand and manage risk actively. The Theoreticians don't even understand the risks, let alone manage them. How many times have you heard one of them opine that instrument flying "can't possibly be all that difficult"?

True enough, there is a few of them on the homebuild aircraft website.

 

I remember seeing a powered parachute trike on a trailer in country Victoria and thinking that I wouldn't let my worst enemy fly in this.

Oh was there something wrong with this particular PPC or are you just... ah theorising that all PPC's be no good? Not quite getting that part Sunfish as provided the weather is OK these are generally known to be very safe.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

sunfish seems to be an advocate of tough love.

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Alf:

 

Well sunfish,Your one hell of a safe pilot yourself by the sounds of it knowing too well the trike didn't have enough room to take off, so you just sat there on your verandah smoking your pipe and let him crash basically without even thinking of maybe having a word to him and trying to persuade him not to attempt the impossible.

 

Guess thats the difference between us the lower end of the food chain and real pilots who fly real planes??

 

And yes I will ignore you in the future.

 

Alf

Alfie, I didn't have a pilots licence at the time and I was completely unsure about what I was looking at. I knew nothing about the performance of this vehicle so I just sat and watched. How was I to know? Especially as a mere Engineer who had been told to "eff off" by pilots before? I didn't know that what was being attempted was impossible.

 

That said, I guess these days I might waddle down and ask for the name and address for the Coroner. Nothing else seems to get anyones attention.

 

But not to forget the issue. RAA attracts the shallow end of the Gene pool, apart from all those lovely people in Jabirus and Virus, etc How are you going to excrete the crap?

 

Tornado: "Tough Love" might be a very good idea - and keep more people alive.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Probably best to stick to your yachts rather that trolling Sunfish.

 

To suggest that RAA attracts the shallow end of the gene pool is offensive, but given that you wrote it people shouldn't take offense.

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Turbo, what I mean is that the RAA is the last resort for some pilots who can't legally get airborne any other way. That is simply fact like saying that poor people live in Redfern or Footscray. It is not to imply that all RAA members are from the shallow end of the Gene pool. There are some very sophisticated and dedicated pilots in RAA and some of the gear is very sophisticated as well, like the Pipistrel product.

 

My question is more to do with how does RAA propose to deal with the odd serial idiot, apart from sending flowers to the funeral?

 

For example, there was, I believe, an Australian You Tube video of some bloke intentionally spinning a Drifter - the POH specifically states that this is prohibited. Did the RAA attempt to track this guy down and pull his ticket? That is exactly what happened to a commercial helicopter pilot for far less.

 

As for yachts, we occasionally get the same problem - people intent on doing something without experience and who won't take, no, actively refuse, advice. As a general rule, after the second Ten thousand dollar repair job they see the light, Unfortunately aviation is not so forgiving.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

But what can we do? Induvidually we should strive for disciplined flying everytime we take control of an aircraft.

I am at a loss and don't like seeing this waste of life.

 

Alf

Agree entirely Alf, but the temptation still exists for "Exuberant" flying occasionally, I saw, recently on another forum, some bloke saying that there's nothing wrong with a bit of exuberance now and again, if it's done properly. . . . . .

 

This would be funny if it wasn't such a dangerous statement to make on an open forum. The Whole problem IMO is that those who seem to have a liking for unusual and extreme flying, appear to be those who don't posess the experience nor training so to do, with the predictable results that we keep reading about in the incident statistics.

 

I'm happy to say that at my Flying CLub, we seem to have gotten rid of any people who displayed these attitudes or showed symptoms, two because they are dead, and others by gentle education and counselling !! But if you read through as many forums as I do, it isn't long before you find someone blathering on about how safe it is to teach yourself IMC flying if only you have the right kit on board etc etc . . .

 

Some years ago, there was a "High Hours" flexwing instructor in our area whose party piece was to spiral dive over a runway threshold from as high as 2,000 feet, and then execute a perfect landing off the end of it. . . this looks quite exciting, especially to low time pilots and students, who OBVIOUSLY aspire to be able to control an aircraft in a similar manner. One of the 2 guys mentioned above tried to copy this manouevre and is currently rotting away in a box somewhere., after seriously injuring his passenger. ( 55 hours total time ! ) Monkey sees,. . .monkey does.

 

That particular instructor retired some years ago, but refused to admit that his flying displays had anything to do with the fatal incident. Oh really ?.

 

The disciplined flying regime works for us now Alf, but it obvioulsy doesn't completely in other places. Phil.

 

 

[ozbear]

I'm looking from the outside. I have a PPL. I spent Six years as a staff engineer at Ansett in its haydays. I also worked for a few years at Hawker Dehavilland / Fishermans Bend on military and civil projects. I didn't take up recreational flying until later in life and I love it. I'm building something now and I'm doing it to as close as I can to Boeing specs. Yes it will end up heavy (mainly through sealant and paint) and it will be equipped with the best gear money can buy. I do it this way because I want to focus on flying all the time, not focussiing on whether something is going to hold together, or that niggling engine rattle, or that vibration from somewhere. I do not believe holding a PPL makes me a superior breed.What gets my goat are the absolute plonkers that seem to take the RAA as an easy way out. This is not to say they aren't in GA as well, but GA has something called CASA which has big enough teeth to scare some of the plonkers sufficiently enough to try to behave. By plonkers I mean people who don't understand that safety is a state of mind.

 

The first lot of plonkers are the daredevils. Few in GA own an aircraft. It is a relatively simple matter in GA once detected to remove daredevil pilots via restricting their ability to fly via club or CASA... or they remove themselves from the population, unfortunately sometimes taking someone with them.

 

Then there are the "it costs too much" brigade that try and make do with unsuitable or badly maintained crap.

 

Then there are the "theoreticians" who repudiate a hundred years of aviation lore and design in favour of their own crackpot ideas of what constitutes safe Aviation. They won't learn because what you are trying to tell them disagrees with their own notions. They differ from true innovators and experimenters because those groups understand and manage risk actively. The Theoreticians don't even understand the risks, let alone manage them. How many times have you heard one of them opine that instrument flying "can't possibly be all that difficult"?

 

I remember seeing a powered parachute trike on a trailer in country Victoria and thinking that I wouldn't let my worst enemy fly in this. Then there was the time sitting on a verandah watching a tandem trike try and takeoff from a too short field, in the bottom of a vee shaped valley, surrounded by tall timber. after Four tries he made it and flew straight into the waiting power lines. Luckily the ground below was freshly ploughed.

 

The problem for the RAA is that you guys are the association of last resort for the pilots at the bottom of the food chain - the shallow end of the Gene pool, and I don't know how you deal with it.

 

Anyway, I'm just a boring old fart, hopefully cognisant of my aviation failings, so feel free to ignore me.

I bet you sit in your hanger watching young flyers making basic mistakes and can't wait to bad mouth them to your mates instead of going out and offering them a hand or friendly advise !

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Ozbear:

 

I bet you sit in your hanger watching young flyers making basic mistakes and can't wait to bad mouth them to your mates instead of going out and offering them a hand or friendly advise !

I don't have the experience to make such pithy observations regarding someones flying skills or lack of them, let alone offer advice, but I know quite enough about safety systems and behaviour to be sensitive to bad safety attitudes which is where the problem lies.

 

 

[2tonne]

Sunfish,

 

I am very new to the world of aviation. And, before starting my flying lessons, I looked closely at the ATSB records to try to gauge how safe flying is. Going back through the records over the years it readily became apparent that many fatal GA accidents were the result of poor pilot behaviours and risk taking. So, I can't see that the "shallow end of the gene pool" as you put it is entirely restricted to RA.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

 

 

[facthunter]

Shallow end of the Gene pool is a description hardly worthy of anything other than to express something akin to a "snob" concept. It can only offend and achieve little else. We cop a lot of this from people who until they get into a small plane and fly it properly, ( like Dick smith) really should not make too much comment.

 

The minimalist aircraft require skills that are considerable to operate well . Ex airline people can have difficulty with coming to grips with it due to the difference with what they have come from where a large amount of resources is available and everything is very controlled, so you don't have to go out on a limb. and innovate .

 

Go and fly some of this stuff, get fair dinkum and then tell us more. I have quite a few ex airline people who I know have gone back to something they were involved in before flying the 'heavies'.and do a good job of it . Some with similar conncepts to what you have expresses will never fly one. Well that's what they say anyhow, whether they stick to it is their choice.

 

It's not compulsory. If you don't like it don't do it. Those of us here who want to be, will try and improve it. Nev

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Facthunter:

 

resources is available and everything is very controlled, so you don't have to go out on a limb

(bashes head against wall)

.........Silly me. I always thought that the whole point of good airmanship was exactly that.