Whats going wrong in Recreational Aviation lately?

[Guest floatHigh]

To really know how things are going with accidents, I think that a qualified person collect & analyze, say,

 

the results from the last couple of years of recreational type aircraft and extract useful data on causes.

 

Also, have similar data from GA accidents, choosing only small Cessna type aircraft (150/172) for comparison.

 

And with this data presented in a graphical form, we should be able to see and conclude the cause of accidents a little better.

 

Food for thought, anyway.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Guys

 

In my work before we start to fix something we must prove that it is broken. My gut feeling is that there is something wrong, but without seeing all the facts to back that up in reality we cant be sure.

 

So from a perspective of mature "Problem Solving and decision making" we cant postulate a solution to an unknown problem. Using the "Kepner Tregoe" methodology we must identify all the facts of what is known and what is not known before moving into solution mode. All of which should be done without using emotion to shape the known and unknowns.

 

Has anyone plotted accident rate vs membership vs Aircraft on the register and proved that we have an issue. With a published growth rate that has been lauded as unachievable in any other form of aviation it stands to reason (all else being equal) that there must be a similar growth in incidents and accidents.

 

Now Im not saying we shouldnt start to explore this potential problem, but what I am saying is that knowing the facts will generally put us in a much better position to defend against some emotional statement being made that involves the use of the words "ultralights", "idiots" and "something must be done".

 

Collecting thefacts aroound the known and unknown is no minor task and should probably be left to those who have access to all the knowns and unknowns. That excludes me, how about you guys?

 

Andy

 

 

[vk3auu]

Accident statistics

 

The RAAus office has all the information about the number of aircraft and the number of hours flown, so it should be a simple matter to see if the accident rate is increasing or not. I might suggest that the numbers should be divided into two groups as well. Those aircraft which the traditionalists might refer to as "Real Ultralights" and those others. Perhaps a division based on nominal cruise speed and/or MTOW might apply.

 

From a casual observation, it is my impression that the Real Ultralights are not the ones having the accidents, at least not the fatal ones.

 

David

 

 

[sain]

I should probably point out that those 13 deaths listed above are over 12 months, not 6. Still not a good statistic though.

 

As i mentioned before, some of those were also GA aircraft, though they were reported as being ultralights on the news. This sort of thing doesnt really help our image as a safe users of the airspace. I'm pretty sure the RV-4 was GA, and also at least one of the QLD crashes (though i dont remeber which).

 

Unfortunately this passtime we all love so much does have some associated risks and in some cases no matter how well the pre-flight checks or maintenance has been done something will go wrong. On the other hand doing acrobatics in a non-rated plane probably isnt going to help your chances survival too much.

 

I'm not sure what the fix is, but I believe unless things start to change soon we are going to lose some of our privileges, which would be a crying shame.

 

With regard to the "human factors" being discussed above it may be helpful to use the military concept of the OODA loop (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop). It is a simplistic way of looking at the decision making cycle used by pretty much everybody - you Observe a problem, you Orient your observation (based on your learning), you Decide how to react, and you Act.

 

Anyway, its an interesting concept which gets used by the military to help train their pilots in decision making in unusual/emergency situation. They do that by creating unusual and emergency situations for them to deal with.

 

Maybe incorporating more system failure (i.e radio, electricals, gyros, engine) scenarios into our training would help lower the death toll in the future.

 

 

[Admin]

From a casual observation, it is my impression that the Real Ultralights are not the ones having the accidents, at least not the fatal ones.

- That is a good observation and dare I say in my opinion most probable as well - so, what is this telling us:

- the faster we go means the more chance of a fatal accident, or;

 

- the modern aircraft today that is slipperier, faster, lighter, more manoeuvrable etc is pushing the limits of safety

 

 

[Guest floatHigh]

From real data, one can do all sorts computations and permutations.

 

For example: In a study outlined in KITPLANES September issue, in a 3-year period, there were less accidents in kitplanes compared to the Cessna group.

 

...and then we can look at the pilot age group, etc. etc., :)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

From a casual observation, it is my impression that the Real Ultralights are not the ones having the accidents, at least not the fatal ones.

David

I dont think its that simple. The recent dual fatality in Townsville on a 95.32 Trike occured with an Aircraft that could hardly be called a GA wannabe...

 

Andy

 

 

[Yenn]

brentc. Thanks for the definition. I may even understand it in fact I think it was what I have been saying. Of course I am grumpy, it has been cold and wet here and I couldn't fly on Saturday. At least it has put some water in the dam.

 

Now what the hell is kepar traego and OODA. Oh I recognise OODA but have forgotten the actual letters used but it was carried one step further in my usage by checking if the fix actually worked.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.... Now what the hell is kepar traego .

"Kepner Tregoe" is a consulting / training Company that teach, among other things, a methodolgy for identifying and fixing complex problems.

 

The major problem that most people have (mostly unknowingly) is that they spend little time on identifying and classifying problems and relatively quickly move on to solving a problem. The issue is that in many cases the problem being solved either doesnt exist, or is different in nature to what the quick and dirty analysis showed.

 

They use a heap of real life examples that in effect show that more time on the initial analysis can result in much less wheel spin further down track.

 

When My manager of years ago told me I was going to this course I thought he was nuts, thinking that Id been problem solving my whole life and that Id be taught little of value..... I was wrong

 

Anyway the point, in context to the thread, is that we shouldnt move onto solving a problem until we are very certain that the problem exists and know absolutely what the charcteristics of the problem are. From my perspective much of what is discussed above fits into the solution space. The opening post was along the lines of " I think theres a problem, and if there is we better fix it cause there will be implications for us if we dont".

 

As I see it we have not yet gathered sufficient info to move beyond "I think theres a problem." Peronally I dont think that I can add to the problem definition, other than by self reflection of my attitudes and actions.

 

Andy

 

 

[sain]

The OODA loop is Observe, Orient, Decide and Act (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop for a more detailed explanation)- it just describes the decision making cycle. If you affect one part of it then the other parts are also affected. I.e somebody mechanically inclined may pick up that their engine is sounding a trifle funny, so they may decide to abondon their flying till its been checked out. Here the Observe and Orient parts have been affected (they observe the slightly strange noise, and their training helps them interpret or orientate it) so their decision would be different to somebody with no mechanical expereience.

 

Anyway, what i was suggesting was that training in dealing with emergency situations would help people deal with emergencies more effectively. After all if your used to the big noisy thing up front going all quiet on you then you'll have a tendancy to react to it better than somebody who its never happened to. That inital "oh " moment is a lot shorter and the first response will tend to be better.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Ok, who wants to take action?

 

Section 36 of the RA-Aus constitution says the following:

 

36. Inspection of books.

 

The records, books and other documents of the Association shall be open to inspection at a place in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour.

 

Who would like to volunteer to gather the information, analyse it and make some findings? Is anyone qualified to do so or know somebody that is? If you are a member of RA-Aus I don't believe any privacy laws are relevant. I can assist, but am unsure if my input will result in a scientific result.

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

Hi All,

 

Andys@Gawler and Float High are spot on...get the facts and apply different analysis to obtain relevant facts.

 

Tony rightly idenifies the issues from a wide and accurate perspective....problem is the 'horse has bolted' in the last few years...relative to what was that is.

 

I wonder how the RA-Aus can be made aware of the depth of feeling and resolve for action in regard to the many issues raised by members in the forgoing posts....Airmanship, maintenance, human factors, age, etc......

 

Of course, our RA-Aus office bearers are concerned, as we read so often.

 

Perhaps some member representation at the AGM coupled with with a proposal to make these very concerning issues part of the RA-Aus strategic plan would seem to be the way to go.....after all is'nt the current President asking members to contribute to a vision for the association.

 

Perhaps also, a properly constituted Taskforce with resolve to arrive at a plan including basic maintenance training , airmanship, and penalities for breaches (provided the risk taker dos'nt kill himself in the meantime) might keep the leglislators at bay....better that than no plan at all.

 

Cheers

 

JL

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

This gets better by the day this thread. It is also pretty devastating.

 

Whilst I appreciate the interest in analysing the data to look for trends and the option of going and doing that, I don't think that's the go. Here's why:

 

This is an issue for the whole organisation - and the families and loved ones of all of us. It is ultimately the responsibility of the organisation (working with each of the members) to provide leadership.

 

We have the option of picking up the phone and talking to the senior management at the RAAus at any stage. Talk to them about your concerns, ask them questions, offer to help....

 

I rang RAAus yesterday. I think that I can reasonably say two things without breaking confidence. Firstly they are at least as concerned as we are about this. Secondly there does not from their point of view appear to be much pattern to any of these accidents.

 

Ring them up, ring your Board member talk to them about what you think, what you expect.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

Hi Mike,

 

Devastating??

 

I hope my post did not suggest confrontation, but rather support of the RA-Aus and the development of a plan involving many of the valid issues raised earlier....after all the RA-Aus is us.

 

In respect of daily inspections for example, the GFA test and licence pilots to approve aircraft to fly....not a drama for the RA-Aus really, but a small step in an overall plan.

 

I know of a syndicate of new chums who remounted an engine and bent the holding bolts to suit the frame....flew 60 hrs before someone (me) noticed and commented.

 

Lack of understanding the cause......Problem since rectified.

 

As for no common issues in recent fatalities, not so....I know of one factor that relates to three of the stated accidents, although how one educates against risky flying or safety dismissive attitudes is challenging....still nevertheless, worthy of consideration and a plan.

 

You mentioned 'two things' resulting from your discussion with senior management... was there any suggestion of proposal for 'marketing' renewed safety awareness to members or other considerations in relation to the disturbing realities?..... This too could be a possibility for inclusion in a plan or part of a strategy for our rapidly growing membership,

 

.....remembering that the majority only fly around 50 hours a year (I'm advised)....barely sufficient to remain current...or at least this was considered so in gliding

 

Perhaps an analysis of hours and types flown in itself might lead to understanding/conclusions and a plan to facilitate increased safety awarness for members.....particularly as some pilots 'graduate' from Drifters and thrusters to 100 Kt slippery machines.

 

One real safety issue about to descend on us is Ethanol, and its impact on fuel systems.....an analysis of all RA-Aus aircraft effected would be useful together with member awarness and education.

 

A strategic plan (vision) would help.

 

Cheers

 

JL

 

PS. I too find the Board and Management willing to listen, however sometimes an informed group carry more weight than an individual.

 

 

[Guest Redair]

Replies to replies

 

Firstly, the "Motor mechanics just doesn't cut it" remark... that may well be true to a point, and as I have said I am a qualified motor mechanic, but would welcome more teaching on the aviation side of things, however, the mere motor mechanic may well be able to spot/advise someone who is going wrong, has gone wrong or just is plain unaware. So please don't write us grease-monkies off just yet, eh!

 

Secondly, this "Kept a Treehugger" thinking method... in my day that was just called common sense! If something goes tits-up, find out what caused it before trying to fix/improve things. Still, I suppose the use of buzz-words and American-style actualisation and box-ticking, does rather repackage what we already know and make us think that it's some new wonder cure... not to mention all the money it makes for those clever devils that peddel it!!!

 

Thirdly, big words.... Mmmmm Obfuscate? To darken or to cloud an issue for example. There, and to think that my English teacher said I had no grasp of the language!!!! Me, no grasp of English... that's unpossible!

 

Redair.

 

Let's hope this might lighten the mood a little, after all, we are meant to be on the same side!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hi Redair a while back i used to go to a larger TAFE and do three nights during the winter term. started off with BAK MET and NAV then a little later with GA maintainence modules. engine piston and turbine, airframe and their sub modules. Study was pretty much free back then. Good reading are the 'Integrated Training Program' series of books or current equivilent. If their are no available ultralight courses. this may be a direction to take. use the dual inspection method for any work performed.

 

LOL

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

..... So please don't write us grease-monkies off just yet, eh!Secondly, this "Kept a Treehugger" thinking method... in my day that was just called common sense! If something goes tits-up, find out what caused it before trying to fix/improve things.

People

 

If the problem were a simple problem that could easily be identified then we wouldnt need to be "Bob the Brain Surgeon" to find a solution. Nor should we spend much time before moving to action.

 

However that isnt the case, If it were so then the problem would be well on the way to being ancient history, assuming you agree with me that the RAA team arent exactly novices at this. The problem we have is multi faceted and complex, so much so that just trying to write a concise description of the problem that everyone agrees with will be difficult especially if the description has to contain real problems and not a 50000 ft management view.

 

However in the end your comments, " find out what caused it before trying to fix/improve things" is exactly right and in a complex problem is exactly what the framework attempts to do, and in exactly that order... not the reverse, or not as a reiterating never ending process that may damage us more than fix anything.

 

Im not advocating analysis paralysis, but equally Im not advocating a "quick do something, anything!" approach which will be seen in time to be at best a wheel spinning exercise, at worst a cover up.

 

If anyone wants to understand the "Kept a Treehugger" thinking and the real value that it returns then see if you can borrow a book called "The rational manager: A systematic Approach to problem solving and decision making"

 

Alternately some info can be gained here http://www.kepner-tregoe.com/results/results-CaseStudy.cfm?category=PSDM

 

I promise I wont knock your ideas until I can find evidence to provide to you that shows your incorrect, or an alternate should be considered. Please do me the same courtesy

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Decca]

Andy I’m personally hoping there is a simple solution - to educate all pilots, old & new, to think about the decisions they make based on human factors research no matter how small the decision, so that WHATEVER the outcome it’s a good one, so there’s no hidden errors built into the steps required to achieve the outcome, so that all the “what-ifs†are considered. Decca.

 

Hey guys - I’ve been trying to absorb all the posts to try to come up with something helpful. I don’t know how public these forums are but I am sure there’s a lot of silent observers out there. That can’t be a bad thing because it makes any thread like this open & transparent. Some may be the concerned public you speak of who if nothing else you’re showing your professionalism. Some may be interested board members who should be invited in (very good call Mike, our governing body needs to be included here but I’m also hoping they’ll take your assistance on board).

 

Meantime you’re doing pretty well. I am NOT a self appointed convener here, I’m a relative newbie & have every respect for you who have a handle on the issue;

 

BUT HERE’S SOME SUGGESTIONS

 

Try to contact Ian to see if you can organise a video (or at least audio) conference in a private chat room with him and/or one of the moderators. Hopefully you can formulate a workable strategy quickly.

 

Try to include all who have posted from the initial post. (except me ‘cause I really should be doing other stuff).

 

Try to include pilots LIKE Towering Cu who will be current on Human Factors.

 

Don’t get sidetracked.

 

Keep positive and stay focused.

 

Don’t exclude anyone who has posted, because each of you has made valuable contributions.

 

No intimidation allowed on any side. GSA & Redair take note (LOL) (actually I know an L2 ex motor mechanic who’d REALLY be cut if he heard an AME or LAME make a comment like that).

 

Correct JL, Mr President is asking for future direction ideas/comments.

 

I think that’s all, & I hope it’s helpful & constructive.

 

Here goes, Decca.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy I’m personally hoping there is a simple solution

Decca

 

I work for a large Aerospace Company and report to one of the Company Directors. I've lost count of the number of times he has told me "Hope is not a valid strategy" and he's right.

 

In my Company which has small margins and very large value, high risk projects a fall back position to hope is usually followed by realised risk and profit margin that disappears.

 

Anyway, Im not having a go.

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Decca]

Thanks Andy. No offence taken. I guess you & your boss make informed decisions which are usually correct for the longevity of the company, and you don’t gamble with risk. Well I’m still hopeful that “where there’s life there’s hope†and these often innocent people won’t kill themselves or others by making flawed or impulsive decisions, becoming complacent, & accepting human factors as a means of accomplishing this. I s’pose I should have said I know there’s a simple solution, & given the correct training (except those with a death wish) these people won‘t gamble with risk either.

 

Regards, Decca.

 

 

[Guest Redair]

Clarity

 

I promise I wont knock your ideas until I can find evidence to provide to you that shows your incorrect, or an alternate should be considered. Please do me the same courtesy

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Andy, all due resepct and courtesy paid to your posting and your ideas, I was merely trying to make a point that in my opinion, (doubtless worth squat) people in general are more open to ideas, methods and solutions to problems if they are not clouded (or possibly obfuscated) by techno-speak and all manor of whiz-bang terms, which at the end of the day can better be explained with a little more clarity. By all means use whatever method you choose to form an answer to the problem, but at least try and keep it simple in the explanation and presentation, so that us mere mortals can feel instantly part of solution... that is to say, we understood it and it was relevent to what we do and how we do it. We're not all rocket scientists you know!

 

My point about the grease-monkeys was more to state that it isn't always the person with the years of training that makes the breakthrough... after all, weren't Orville and Wilbur just bicycle mechanics before they made their breakthrough?

 

So, no offence meant to anyone. I'll get my coat!

 

Redair.

 

 

[Guest osprey5]

After reading through the forum there’s been a lot of discussion but only a few suggestions on solving the issues. To start with, this is an excellent place in which to air views and get the ball rolling. I agree with previous posts that if we fail in self regulation and authorites step in then affordable flying will dissapear and restrictions will kill the pleasure in flying just as the jet skiers have found and the spearfishing fraternity who’s accesable dive spots are now marine reserves.

 

Personally (and here I set myself up for flaming J ) we need not only the details relating to incidents and accidents to be published but the ‘approved’ procedures or recommendations for avoiding repetitions in the future.

 

I guess I’m fortunate to be involved with knowledgable sensible pilots in the aircraft I fly and this all reinforces safe flying and attention to detail during maintenance. We double check each others work to ensure its done when doing some maintenance, we talk about proposed flight paths and get feedback on alternative safer options. Its all about communication without fear of riducule.

 

We admit our stuff ups and that all helps others in not repeating our mistakes and we don’t exceed our abilities such as flying a taildragger in gusty crosswinds. There’s always another day.

 

MikeH

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Like I said in my previous post, we can take action with a careful approach.

 

Section 36 of the RA-Aus constitution says the following:

 

36. Inspection of books.

 

The records, books and other documents of the Association shall be open to inspection at a place in the ACT, free of charge, by a Member of the Association on request at any reasonable hour.

 

I take it that 'other documents' includes crash stats and all records.

 

I have been contacted by one forum member who is more than qualified to assist. Are there any other takers? Not too many would be the key.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Brent,

 

I respect anyone who wants to tackle this problem. However, I feel that the issue of analysis is something that we already pay people to do. Our membership pays the salaries of our (very good) executive team. It is their role to analyse accident data and develop strategies for the movement as a whole and needy sub-sets of the movement.

 

If we feel like the executive team are not meeting our needs we should tell them that and be clear about what we expect - we can do that direct or through our Board.

 

My concern is that if we don't think they are doing what we want, so we get stuck in and do their job ourselves then we are creating a further problem: We would then have a disempowered executive team.

 

I was MD of a research and organisational development consulting business for 9 years. I've written internationally published text books on data analysis. I probably have some level of capacity to poke through the data. I don't want to do that though, because I want an empowered and effective management team at RAAus. I think that largely we have that and I want to support and enhance that, not undermine it.

 

I've been on three sides of the fence: an executive (current and past), a board member (current and past) and a "member" (current and past). I am acutely aware of the delicacy of the dynamics in these situations.

 

We must by all means contribute, support, challenge, lead where necessary as contributors to a more effective organisation. What in my view we mustn't do is usurp the role of the executive team - either as members or as board members.

 

##Rant Over##

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I undertand Mike that we have a board and executive, however I suspect that they are not qualified to undertake detailed crash investigation and analysis. I believe that ATSB investigators undertake over 2 months of training per year to maintain their status. As Ian can attest, it would be beneficial for the executive to sometimes seek direction and utilise the skills of association members. From the PM's and emails that I've already received we appear to have some high calibre individuals with us with regard to investigative qualifications and experience.