RAAus Future

[turboplanner]

The failures history seems to indicate many of them never found it.

 

 

[M61A1]

With over 80% of accidents being CFIT, throughout western world aviation, including recreational, I don't see that we have significant maintenance issues. Of course there's always room for improvement, but it's not how the majority of deaths are occurring, by a long shot.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We're talking about engine failures, not CFIT.

 

Engine failures in the test, runup, roll, takeoff, flight, after landing rarely cause fatalities, so those statistics are not indicators.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

One question I have about increasing weights, what engine are you going to use? I think the 912S is going to be a bit short of power on hot days or high altitudes at MTOW.

 

 

[facthunter]

There are many more options ft. The Pietenpol used an A model Ford. Not suggesting we go back to that but If you want the Radial look and sound you can have a Rotac which are a bit heavy for our weight limit. You have the Chev Corvair all the Continental Lycoming offerings, UL's, Subaru's Mazda Rotaries Honda V6's etc Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

One question I have about increasing weights, what engine are you going to use? I think the 912S is going to be a bit short of power on hot days or high altitudes at MTOW.

A weight increase would allow for many more automotive options, the whole idea for myself, is to avoid expensive purpose built aviation engines. Like your BMW engines for example, they are a good engine, but far too heavy to stick in a 95.10.

[M61A1]

We're talking about engine failures, not CFIT.Engine failures in the test, runup, roll, takeoff, flight, after landing rarely cause fatalities, so those statistics are not indicators.

I was under the impression we were talking about aircraft maintenance a a whole.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I wonder where the 600kg single seater LSAs are?

 

 

[M61A1]

I wonder where the 600kg single seater LSAs are?

I am aware of a couple of single seat 19 rego aircraft that were built under 10k.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

where are the commercial ones though? LSA has been out for a while and I can only think of a few but none in australia.

 

 

[facthunter]

Single seater are not popular. There is no-one to argue with .Nev

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Single seater are not popular. There is no-one to argue with .Nev

Of course there is, another 'single seater pilot' who's also tuned into 123.45. The problem, is getting the 2 planes/pilots together.

 

 

[M61A1]

Single seater are not popular. There is no-one to argue with .Nev

Like riding a motorcycle, part of the beauty of a single seater is the solitude.

 

 

[facthunter]

And it handles better.. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

With over 80% of accidents being CFIT, throughout western world aviation, including recreational, I don't see that we have significant maintenance issues. Of course there's always room for improvement, but it's not how the majority of deaths are occurring, by a long shot.

Pardon me, but how do you know that? I've never found the accident data from RAA sufficiently detailed to make such an assessment. I have some experience in aircraft accident investigation, and I'm sorry to have to say that a lot of the reports I have read have left a great deal to be desired. And it gets really complicated when you get into areas like "design-induced pilot error" or cases where the engine fails and the pilot makes a mess of the forced landing. Is that bad training (was not taught how to judge the approach to a sloping landing site); Pilot error (should not have been flying over un-landable terrain); Pilot error (fuel management - how do you tell if the fuel system leaked as a result of landing); maintenance error (left a split-pin out of the throttle linkage, or something of the sort) etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum. Almost all accidents have multiple causes; sorting them out into a correct order of precedence is extremely difficult to do.

Therefore I distrust sweeping statement like the above. I don't think the data are good enough to make such a statement.

 

Aside from that, take a good look at the GFA maintenance system. It deals with factory-built products that can be used to earn a dollar, and it's done mostly by voluntary labour. No, it's not perfect - but it's pretty good, judging by the results. Gliders have certificates of airworthiness, and annually-issued maintenance releases. It can be done in the context of a recreational aviation activity. The RAA system is a shambles by comparison.

 

 

[M61A1]

Pardon me, but how do you know that? I've never found the accident data from RAA sufficiently detailed to make such an assessment. I have some experience in aircraft accident investigation, and I'm sorry to have to say that a lot of the reports I have read have left a great deal to be desired. And it gets really complicated when you get into areas like "design-induced pilot error" or cases where the engine fails and the pilot makes a mess of the forced landing. Is that bad training (was not taught how to judge the approach to a sloping landing site); Pilot error (should not have been flying over un-landable terrain); Pilot error (fuel management - how do you tell if the fuel system leaked as a result of landing); maintenance error (left a split-pin out of the throttle linkage, or something of the sort) etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum. Almost all accidents have multiple causes; sorting them out into a correct order of precedence is extremely difficult to do.Therefore I distrust sweeping statement like the above. I don't think the data are good enough to make such a statement.

 

Aside from that, take a good look at the GFA maintenance system. It deals with factory-built products that can be used to earn a dollar, and it's done mostly by voluntary labour. No, it's not perfect - but it's pretty good, judging by the results. Gliders have certificates of airworthiness, and annually-issued maintenance releases. It can be done in the context of a recreational aviation activity. The RAA system is a shambles by comparison.

The sweeping statement was directly from a flight safety magazine, admittedly a few years ago, but from what I read, the numbers included recreational flying, and were about 84% CFIT. I made the statement in reply to another that suggested most of our incidents are maintenance related.

 

 

[pylon500]

Go back to 95:10?

In my first comment, I was trying to draw the line at a level of regulation, more than weight or performance.

We know going the American FAR103 way didn't work, too many GA pilots were killing themselves in 95:10's, so we had to instigate some form of training in 'Ultralights'.

 

Hence the Thusters and Drifters.

 

The Americans realised this about 15 years later (than us) and also set up a training system in 'ultralight' styled aircraft.

 

Of course our aircraft, now being used for hire and reward, had to have some form of 'accountability', so 95:25 came into existance (yes, I know, 95:25 came first, THEN the Thrusters and Drifters appeared. But it was a close run thing....)

 

Once 95:25 was promulgated, designers looked at it and said "We can build better aircraft to fit this", and the Lightwing appeared.

 

Now, because I have a soft spot for the Lightwing, (about 2000 hours and 25 years of teaching in them) I was happy to accept what was required within 95:25, but could now fly something a bit better than the Thrusters and Drifters.

 

All these aircraft were 'approved'.

 

I don't think any of them were 'certified', they couldn't be because most of their engines could only ever hope to be 'approved'. (Who in their right mind would certify a two stroke!!?)

 

Unfortunately, 95:25 was only supposed to be an interim ruling/exemption, until CASA could see which way ultralights were going, and decide what sort of control was needed to appease the media and politicians.

 

I feel we started to lose control of the situation when 101:55 came along, and the word certified crept into the rules.

 

So this is where I feel we could/should be as 'Ultralighters'.

 

The freedoms we have in 95:10, what was 95:25, and even in 19-xxxx (101:55ORIGINAL) are enough to fly the way, I think, the majority of us want to.

 

I can hear the uproar about, "But hire and reward aircraft must fit into complex and oppressive rules"

 

Really?

 

Have statistics proven that since we created L2's and multi tiered training facilities, (I am a Level 2 by the way) that the accident rate has dropped?

 

I think history has proven that, 'The more you try to idiot proof life, life will evolve better idiots!'

 

All we have done since the end of 95:25, is to push recreational ultralight flying to the limit of affordability for the recreational ultralight flyer

 

We need to be more like the GFA instead of GA, it can work...

 

Enough for now, or I'll start writing a novel

 

 

[coljones]

ItAll the new regs, weights and airspace "needs" don't just magically appear. They are achieved through a lot of time and effort spent by OUR tireless staff at RAAus. Our rego's and membership fees pay for the mammoth amount of time our paid staff put into these projects. That's why it costs more. My membership or rego is no cheaper just because i might choose to fly around a paddock. Those that do not need or even want all the extra things we push for are in effect subsidising the cost for those that do. If we were not chasing more and more all the time, then having to hire more staff to administer all the extra requirements it would cost us all less. Those staff are paid by all members, regardless of whether or not they will, or can, use it. Even with the continual push for more, we have still amassed a small fortune of over $1m which tells me we are paying too much anyway for rego and membership.

 

Kev

at the present time I would suspect that the cookie cutter planes - jabs, foxbats, lightwings, brumbies etc - since they are so easy to validate, are the bread and butter of RAA. They are the big source of the real money in RAA and, in fact, subsidise all the rest where there needs to be RAA Techman validation of their designs and safety. I am not sure what has been going on in the past but I don't think much time or effort has been put into airspace access since we went above 300feet and across the road. Perhaps you might have a better view about how the board and CEO divided and spent the money between the classes of flying machine we have on the register.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The sweeping statement was directly from a flight safety magazine, admittedly a few years ago, but from what I read, the numbers included recreational flying, and were about 84% CFIT. I made the statement in reply to another that suggested most of our incidents are maintenance related.

Well, that's two sweeping statements. Pardon me again, please, if I don't accept either of them. CFIT is a broad-brush handle that really tells us little or nothing about the cause - unless its use is confined to flying into the side of a hill under IFR, which is (in the broadest sense) an error in navigation - and should never occur in an aircraft flown under VFR - so it really should be inapplicable to RAA aircraft (though of course, we know it's not - but 84% sounds just a tad on the high side, don't you think?). Otherwise, a mucked-up forced landing could be described as CFIT. Ever since the process of accident investigation adopted "buckets" like CFIT, UFIT, etc, the accident reports have become practically meaningless. It's an excuse for not doing the job properly, presumably forced upon the relevant authorities by insufficient resources. We don't want to be told what smashed the aeroplane, we want to be told WHY.

I've spent days picking through wreckage, eliminating possible causes, until only one sustainable possibility is left; in one case, a mid-air breakup, what was left was a pea-size hole in the fuselage lower skin, immediately above the end of the engine exhaust, with exhaust residue in the carpet above it. You do NOT find that sort of thing from a report that in effect says, "the Earth got in the way". In that case, the PM did not pick up CO in the blood, because the wasn't any available to sample, and it evidently did not occur to the medico concerned that anything less than a lethal dose of CO might be significant.

 

So you cannot eliminate maintenance-caused accidents by such a wave of the hand; the fact is, we simply do not have the data.

 

There's a way to answer this question, though it's likely to be unpopular - and that is by random sampling of aircraft in the field. You need a team whose job it is to impound a selected aircraft for 24 hours and go over it with a fine-tooth comb, looking for potentially unsafe conditions. This needs to be a very disciplined approach, or it will disintegrate into mere nit-picking; but if it's done correctly, with the owner's participation, the owner - if he has any more brains than a beetle - should be pleased to have such a free survey; and the accumulated defects found will provide an immediate data base for safety improvement. If by chance, it emerges that most aircraft do not have such defects (Ha! - LOL) then the data will show that defective maintenance is not a major issue. This is really very much the same as the GFA annual inspection, except done much faster, by a team - and without going to significant disassembly.

 

You won't get the answer by waving your arms or by making sweeping statements - but I've heard a lot of waffle about safety management systems; if it were up to me, this is one of the places I'd start.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not a bad idea to WORK in ANY area that MAY be one of the main causes of safety issues. If you don't get it exactly right you will get the second or third, but they will be significant and some benefit. The proper way will address Cost/benefit because that is the reality of things. Others will say how do you put a cost on a life. Well the answer to that is that it is done all the time. My fairly off the shelf list would be something like'.

 

Pilot Training incl. attitude to safety concepts. Maintenance of standards, pilot education on an ongoing basis.

 

Good airframe.design for controllability, structure, and maintenance/inspections. . handling analysis for "different" types available as POH.

 

Power plant ( Concepts , maintenance and fault diagnosis.( pre -failure) inc l mandated inspections and dissemination of specific procedures required to be preformed.

 

That's a start. I don't particularly want to complicate matters but better inform pilots and remove CONFUSION. Getting it wrong doesn't fit with aviation. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

The latest LSA study in the USA found most where runway accidents. Most of those where inappropriate speed. And most involved pilots who fly irregularly and who do not practice takeoffs and landings enough. Maint was not a significant factor, although im sure it would be if they went easy on it.

 

 

[M61A1]

Well, that's two sweeping statements. Pardon me again, please, if I don't accept either of them. CFIT is a broad-brush handle that really tells us little or nothing about the cause - unless its use is confined to flying into the side of a hill under IFR, which is (in the broadest sense) an error in navigation - and should never occur in an aircraft flown under VFR - so it really should be inapplicable to RAA aircraft (though of course, we know it's not - but 84% sounds just a tad on the high side, don't you think?). Otherwise, a mucked-up forced landing could be described as CFIT. Ever since the process of accident investigation adopted "buckets" like CFIT, UFIT, etc, the accident reports have become practically meaningless. It's an excuse for not doing the job properly, presumably forced upon the relevant authorities by insufficient resources. We don't want to be told what smashed the aeroplane, we want to be told WHY.I've spent days picking through wreckage, eliminating possible causes, until only one sustainable possibility is left; in one case, a mid-air breakup, what was left was a pea-size hole in the fuselage lower skin, immediately above the end of the engine exhaust, with exhaust residue in the carpet above it. You do NOT find that sort of thing from a report that in effect says, "the Earth got in the way". In that case, the PM did not pick up CO in the blood, because the wasn't any available to sample, and it evidently did not occur to the medico concerned that anything less than a lethal dose of CO might be significant.

 

So you cannot eliminate maintenance-caused accidents by such a wave of the hand; the fact is, we simply do not have the data.

 

There's a way to answer this question, though it's likely to be unpopular - and that is by random sampling of aircraft in the field. You need a team whose job it is to impound a selected aircraft for 24 hours and go over it with a fine-tooth comb, looking for potentially unsafe conditions. This needs to be a very disciplined approach, or it will disintegrate into mere nit-picking; but if it's done correctly, with the owner's participation, the owner - if he has any more brains than a beetle - should be pleased to have such a free survey; and the accumulated defects found will provide an immediate data base for safety improvement. If by chance, it emerges that most aircraft do not have such defects (Ha! - LOL) then the data will show that defective maintenance is not a major issue. This is really very much the same as the GFA annual inspection, except done much faster, by a team - and without going to significant disassembly.

 

You won't get the answer by waving your arms or by making sweeping statements - but I've heard a lot of waffle about safety management systems; if it were up to me, this is one of the places I'd start.

The figures aren't mine, and while you may feel that the don't apply to Australian recreational aviation, the context of the article was that throughout the western world, these figures did not vary much, and a better understanding of the human factors involved was necessary to improve these figures. I'm not suggesting that there are no maintenance issues, just that there are other issues that can't be ignored. I'm not waving any arms, I'm suggesting that the arm waving stop, and have a good look at what is really happening, so that efforts are directed where the most good can be done.I agree that if you look at any aircraft, you will find defects, and that we could learn some things from the gliding community.

Have look at the recreational aviation fatalities in the last 12 months and see what you think.

 

 

[Teckair]

If I thought a bunch officious goons were going to impound my plane if I went anywhere I would drive instead. As for the GFA being some sort of great example I don't think so, with my personal experience I have come across an instructor who thinks it is best to tack like a yacht with a head wind, a pilot who reckons you can't lay off drift with a cross wind as normal because there is no motor on the front to pull the nose around, numerous cases of bad airmanship including lack of look out and radio use. If they can't get these sort of things right why would other issues be any better?

 

 

[farri]

a pilot who reckons you can't lay off drift with a cross wind as normal because there is no motor on the front to pull the nose around?

Of topic I know but I`ve only had 2 introductory flights in a glider. One glider was winch launched,that flight lasted all of 5 minutes, the other had a motor that got us up to 6000` agl, where we found a thermal. Never given the subject any thought so I found Richards statement interesting.

 

Why would a glider not be able to hold off drift in a cross wind? Wouldn`t it be holding off drift if the heading was sufficiently into wind.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Teckair]

Wouldn`t it be holding off drift if the heading was sufficiently into wind.Frank.

Yes.