Recent RA-Aus fatal accident history

[M61A1]

A foreman in a Mine Site reading what you've just written would probably be raising his eyebrows in disbelief; there's no hesitation in bringing a dozer to a stop, evacuating a sector, or removing an employee and sending him away for retraining if there's any evidence of a risk there.

There is a significant difference....we are not employees of a company, we are recreational aviators. Not really much difference between us and a day to day driver. Instructors carry a similar responsibility to a car driving instructor/tester, the police do the stopping and removing of problem drivers (apparently) not driving instructors, so I gonna guess that CASA will do the stopping and removing of problem flyers. So I imagine that they will have problems in regard to evidence, meaning that if they didn't see you do something wrong, someone better have some damn good evidence that you did before they take action, and rightfully so. For them to do like traffic cops do, we would be seeing them hanging round the circuit area, controlled airspace and enroute in helicopters, booking people for violations, the day that happens, or becomes like a mining site, is the day to leave this country and find something with a bit more freedom, perhaps North Korea.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well I've already suggested areas to study and provided case studies over the past few years which answer all this.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Very interesting to read the posts in this thread and find that very few people understand the actual logic behind safety & HF, anyone out there who thinks safety/HF is there to protect the worker/pilot has their head so far up their backside it isn't funny and you really need to take a look at what actually happens.Neither safety nor HF is there to protect the worker/pilot it is there to protect the company/regulator this is why you sign/do the test/induction to say that you have understood/passed, the information that you have been presented with, from that point onwards it is your responsibility to comply with what was in those documents/exams. This doesn't prevent accidents it just covers the company/regulator when the accident happens (unless of course it is due to negligence on the part of the company/regulator)

I have worked in oil/gas for the last 25 years (flying for 30), onshore, offshore and construction and we don't have any fewer accidents now than we did 25 years ago, in fact we probably have more now than we did when I started, why (apart from the fact that there are more people working in the industry and flying than before)?

 

1. Common sense - no longer applicable (i.e. doesn't exist in many cases), no longer allowed to use the term in relation to safe operations.
    
    
   
2. JRA's, JHA's, step back 5 x 5, take 5's, SWMS, whatever you want to call them are a complete waste of time due to the fact that once completed the majority of people think they are safe and the unexpected is exactly that, they didn't even consider it as we covered all possible scenario's in the pre job meeting.
    
    
   
3. We now apply all situations to the dumbest person on site/in the air, this has the effect on the normal person to not fully partake in the assessments.
    
    
   

 

 

To get back to flying

 

Flying is a manulitative skill (i.e. the more we do the better we get) so we are at the mercy of what we learn, doing what we like.

 

I don't know anyone who wants to die, so why do we get ourselves into situations in which this is the most likely outcome - confidence/overconfidence & peer/passenger pressure.

 

To fly well we require confidence, to gain confidence we need to practice/fly in situations that are at the limit of our abilities - i.e. we improve, when we do, the next time we are presented with the same situation we know that we have done this before and therefore we continue, thinking this will be no worse than the last time (if we do this without first having an out we are heading for disaster).

 

The problem with this method is that sometimes we are not able to deal with the situation or are not able to make the decision to deal with the situation early enough that is at our limit or beyond and it ends in disaster, are we able to prevent this - yes & no - we need to understand when we are at the limit of our abilities and change our expected result - this is HF or airmanship.

 

Is the CFI, CASA or RAA responsible for our actions - NO, the only person responsible for our actions are ourselves, the sooner everyone understands this the safer all will be.

 

To put this into practice with a couple of examples.

 

I fly into and out of Toowoomba on almost a daily basis (approximately 50 minute flight each way)

 

• When am I most likely to run out of fuel on a flight?
  Ans. doing something I do every day i.e during my daily run in and out of Toowoomba. How do I reduce this risk - I will not do any more than two (2) return flights without refuelling (full tanks) even though I have enough for three (3) return flights including reserves and I also use 15% variable reserve - airmanship/HF.
   
   
  

 

 

[*]When am I most likely to encounter an inadvertant IMC situation?

 

• Ans. doing something I do every day i.e. during my daily run in and out of Toowoomba (Toowoomba is a crap place to fly into the weather changes very quickly and the wind shear can be a bitch) even though I complete a flight plan and submit it, get a weather report prior to leaving and call the AWIS service prior to take off, I know from experience if the cloud base is 400 feet or above and the active runway is 11 I can get in on a straight in approach from the west - go round is generally out of the question, so why do I persist - 3000 + landings (in all conditions) and the fact that I fly every day it is unlikely that I can't complete a safe landing - confidence. How do I reduce the risk - Oakey is 15 NM away on my inbound track and doesn't experience the same weather issues and I'm willing to divert if the conditions are worse than anticipated (this is part of my pre take off preperation and I have pre determined points at which I will divert) - airmanship/HF.
   
   
  

 

 

[*]Safety/HF is understanding the risk's associated with what you are doing and implementing strageties to deal with all situations expected and unexpected that arise during those activities - it is up to you.

 

The responsibility of safe flying rests entirely with the PIC the sooner everyone understands this the safer all will be. HF is there to alert you to the possible situations that you may not have considered previously but it will not stop you from killing yourself or others - only you can do that.

 

There will always be people who fly areoplanes, drive cars, operate machinery that should never be allowed to be anynear these pieces of equipment but if they are able to pass the exams & training we are not able to prevent this from happening - our best course of action is to try and educate them (subtly) on the dangers to themselves & others of their actions.

It's not about you and it's not about me; the law changed thirty years ago!

 

we don't have any fewer accidents now than we did 25 years ago, in fact we probably have more now than we did when I started

Here's a link to actual Safe Work Australia figures which say the opposite:

 

Work related injuries have decreased by 25% between 2002 and 2010

 

Work related deaths have decreased by 42% in the same period

 

That's around 42% less wives who don't have to open the front door to someone telling them their loved one has died, around 42% less children growing up without a parent.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/677/Key_Work_Health_and_Safety_Statistics_Australia_2012.pdf

 

The responsibility of safe flying rests entirely with the PIC the sooner everyone understands this the safer all will be

Not any more; There are still prescriptive laws in flying, including CASA and they and the RAA rules certainly make the PIC responsible.

 

However the duty of care spreads to a lot of others, such as the volunteer worker who digs a ditch across a runway, but doesn't lay out a cross, along with the Manager who didn't check that the runway was clear for operations with incoming aircraft.

 

If you think it through, the PIC now has his own actions, PLUS those of others engaged in putting that aircraft in the air - a much safer combination.

 

 

[Aldo]

Here's a link to actual Safe Work Australia figures which say the opposite:Work related injuries have decreased by 25% between 2002 and 2010

Work related deaths have decreased by 42% in the same period

 

That's around 42% less wives who don't have to open the front door to someone telling them their loved one has died, around 42% less children growing up without a parent.

I'm only speaking about the industry in which I work, I have no knowledge of others and how they operate and I don't have the spare time to find out.

 

Not any more; There are still prescriptive laws in flying, including CASA and they and the RAA rules certainly make the PIC responsible.However the duty of care spreads to a lot of others, such as the volunteer worker who digs a ditch across a runway, but doesn't lay out a cross, along with the Manager who didn't check that the runway was clear for operations with incoming aircraft.

If it is no longer the responsibility of the PIC then who do I go to to get my JRA done before I go flying (by the way I should then be safe ha F'ing ha), this thinking is why we now have so many people that can't think for themselves. My CFI/instructer from 30 years ago is no more responsible for my actions than the guy who lives next door.

If as a responsible/irresponsible pilot you neglect to contact the operator of the airport to which you wish to fly to then it is still your fault - not someone elses. I can't think of too many airports where a volunteer is able to just go dig a ditch across the runway without telling too many others.

 

Really you can find a reason to blame someone else for anything that you do, but the sooner we all take responsibility for our own actions the better off we will all be.

 

If you think it through, the PIC now has his own actions, PLUS those of others engaged in putting that aircraft in the air - a much safer combination

Not at all if as PIC you don't fully ensure that the aircraft is airworthy and the place you are flying it to is suitable, then you desreve what you get.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm only speaking about the industry in which I work, I have no knowledge of others and how they operate and I don't have the spare time to find out.

Thought you might say that - your industry is included in those figures

 

If it is no longer the responsibility of the PIC then who do I go to to get my JRA done before I go flying (by the way I should then be safe ha F'ing ha), this thinking is why we now have so many people that can't think for themselves. My CFI/instructer from 30 years ago is no more responsible for my actions than the guy who lives next door.If as a responsible/irresponsible pilot you neglect to contact the operator of the airport to which you wish to fly to then it is still your fault - not someone elses. I can't think of too many airports where a volunteer is able to just go dig a ditch across the runway without telling too many others.

None of your PIC responsibilities fall away, you are still required to meet the prescriptive rules of CASA/RAA. On top of that CASA/RAA have a duty of care to ensure people they license are audited and managed to ensure they always meet best practice standards while they operate. That includes currency checks and I would hope you'd had one in the last 30 years.

 

I just gave a random example with the ditch, it was just to show the principle, however if you were making a forced landing due to weather you don't have time to phone the owner, and that's a human factors thing that you would have to take into account.

 

Really you can find a reason to blame someone else for anything that you do, but the sooner we all take responsibility for our own actions the better off we will all be.

(a) You might be able to find a reason to blame someone else, but a public liability claim is invalid unless that person had a duty of care, so the lurid stories are mostly myth.

 

(b) You may well be taking responsibility for your actions; the current legislation protects you from the negligent actions of someone else.

 

Not at all if as PIC you don't fully ensure that the aircraft is airworthy and the place you are flying it to is suitable, then you desreve what you get.

I think that statement is based on your thought that PIC responsibilities ended when the legislation changed. That's certainly not true.