Plane Crash Barossa Valley 26/6

[68volksy]

This whole ATSB thing keeps coming up. If anyone wants the ATSB to investigate crashes then fly GA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So making 8,000 lives safer doesn't matter?

 

 

[facthunter]

They will IF THEY feel the need. That's not a bad situation. The big gap is getting the message out while it's current, leading to endless speculation which upsets some. Making "x" lives safer is a worthy aim. The bucket of money is finite, or we drive everyone away. It's a question of prioritising the possibilities and applying the most effective ones first. Education before penalisation. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

They will IF THEY feel the need. That's not a bad situation. The big gap is getting the message out while it's current, leading to endless speculation which upsets some. Making "x" lives safer is a worthy aim. The bucket of money is finite, or we drive everyone away. It's a question of prioritising the possibilities and applying the most effective ones first. Education before penalisation. Nev

Agree re the education approach. However, ATSB has no regulatory function - that's up to CASA. If ATSB were to be a little better funded, (and perhaps motivated by the Ministers oversight), they could do all the RAAus accidents - passing the initial findings immediately through to RAAus Operations and Technical. Both RAAus Ops & Tech could then create the safety message and advise each and every RAAus paid up member in a timely manner. RAAus Ops could then decide on what action to take in respect of pilots involved, and RAAus Technical could do similarly in respect of aircraft. CASA need only become involved after RAAus notification of very serious breaches of the Regs. What point is there in RAAus being a separate administrative body if we can't conduct our own business?

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

ATSB can be impartial. Full disclosure would aid safety, THAT is the real reason for going into this stuff, but IF you are going to get clobbered by CASA as a result you are hardly likely to be forthcoming with a list of your transgressions. CASA have to realise this. Years ago they agreed to allow comsideration of HUMAN FACTORS, in a period of unusual enlightenment. This doesn't suit their "strict liability" approach so it didn't last long. They broke an agreement with me on how an interview was going to be conducted and I took my "client" and left the room. The person on their staff promoting the idea I didn't see again. Paul C is his name. I know a lot of people who have worked for CASA. Like ex POW's they don't talk about it. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

If ATSB were to be a little better funded, (and perhaps motivated by the Ministers oversight), they could do all the RAAus accidents

Some how I can not see that happening.

 

 

[facthunter]

Me neither. Being realistic as long as we don't fall on houses, we are of no great import except the sensationalising of most of it by the media. There are BIG costs. Hard to justify under our circumstances . Nev

 

 

[68volksy]

So making 8,000 lives safer doesn't matter?

Simple answer is no - 8000 RA-Aus pilots lives do not matter. It's a bit brutal but that was the whole purpose of RA-Aus when it was setup - that ultralight pilots would look after themselves, take responsibility for their actions and any possible harm to others would be minimal. Just because it's grown outside of its original purpose and now sees itself largely as a means to avoid CASA does not mean the entire world should bend to its will.

 

I think the logical reason the ATSB will not touch many ultralight accidents in the near future is because the whole investigation would prove entirely useless. Look at the Sierra accident. The ATSB asked for training records -utterly lacking. They then asked for a copy of the pilots certificate - utterly lacking. Then they looked at the construction of the aircraft - once again utterly lacking. If RAA had kept its records in order, the training organisation had kept their records in order, the manufacturer had some quality controls in place and the maintainers had seen some apparently glaring issues then there would actually have been a paper trail for the investigators to follow. If you read the report - the only report the ATSB has actually done on a recent ultralight incident - along with the result of all the recent CASA audits and it's staring us all straight in the face (although most are too scared to admit it). The majority of RAA pilots/instructors/manufacturers and maintainers simply do not care. That along with the strong and vocal "anti-oversight" parade...

 

That's why it's RPL for me - at least i know the school i train with will be thoroughly audited, the aircraft I fly are designed to high standards and well proven, they'll be maintained by qualified personnel and the whole lot of them will keep very thorough records. I'm all for those that want to do things differently but as a taxpayer I do not feel any obligation to pay for investigations into their misadventures.

 

 

[GAFA]

Good points 68volksy. In the ideal world the investigations would be carried out by the ATSB, just like the NTSB and UK AAIB carry out all aicraft accidents/incidents in the USA and UK.

 

To get the benefits of having the ATSB investigate, a culture shift within RAA is required. All pilots, flying schools etc need to be more accountable for their actions. This accountable would require everyone with RAA to understand the importance of training and compliance. Reading through recent threads such as the crash in SA and the subsequent threads on VA and what weather pilots are using highlights problems with training standards and compliance.

 

 

[David Isaac]

.....Reading through recent threads such as the crash in SA and the subsequent threads on VA and what weather pilots are using highlights problems with training standards and compliance.

Not unique to RAA but it does appear problematic in RAA.

 

 

[AJS71]

Once again it's bash RAA time again. I respect your right to slam RAA 68volksy, but doesn't mean I share your view. I have been completing my flying training with a professionally run RAA training provider who places a strong emphasis on safety. They maintain accurate training records and operate well maintained aircraft. Weather permitting I will be completing my check flight for my pilot certificate tomorrow.

 

If they were not doing these things well, I would've gone elsewhere and found another RAA training provider. To say they're all crap is an over generalisation. Something GA folks tend to do when it comes to RAA I have discovered...

 

Anyway, nothing personal 68volksy, just happy to promote a thoroughly professional RAA training school and it's Instructors. May your gauges always be in the green Volksy, be they GA or otherwise! Cheers

 

 

[SDQDI]

I don't think it is any benefit to criticise RAA with a broad brush I know personally that I lack in quiet a few points but it isn't the fault of my training, nobody is perfect once they get their certificate/licence and to broadly criticise the trainers based on a couple of examples seems very unfair to me. GA has a lot more going for it in regards to certification ect but the majority of us RAA people don't want the extra expense and are happy to increase our risk by a small amount to save money which is often the difference between flying or not flying. I have nothing against GA and think that we both need to work together better (not join but appreciate that we both want to aviate)

 

Personally some of the worst airmanship and flaunting of rules that I have seen has been by GA pilots so to say its only RAA is stupid and you are only kidding yourself, there are rule breakers/dodgy operators on both sides and its not profitable to point the finger at the other blokes.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well said buddy.

 

I have seen some really questionable operations in all gambits on both sides of the fence. In RAA we should strive to achieve top notch thorough training, of course what happens after that is entirely up to the individual involved.

 

 

[Captain]

Well said buddy.I have seen some really questionable operations in all gambits on both sides of the fence. In RAA we should strive to achieve top notch thorough training, of course what happens after that is entirely up to the individual involved.

David,

 

 

 

I seem to recall a discussion here or elsewhere about 18 - 24 months or maybe more ago which indicated that the ATSB had offered RA-Aus to investigate their accidents, but this was rejected by the then GM and/or the Board.

 

 

 

Was that an urban myth or am I mistaken? Do you or anyone else remember anything about that?

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[David Isaac]

David, 

 

I seem to recall a discussion here or elsewhere about 18 - 24 months or maybe more ago which indicated that the ATSB had offered RA-Aus to investigate their accidents, but this was rejected by the then GM and/or the Board.

 

 

 

Was that an urban myth or am I mistaken? Do you or anyone else remember anything about that?

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

True story,

Don Ramsay can give the exact detail, but we were given the opportunity to discuss this with the ATSB and we did NOTHING.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I can't see any excuse for not at least investigating the opportunity, and reporting back to the membership "We could have had an agreement with ATSB to investigate, however it was going to cost the equivalent of XXX per member yearly and we decided that this was blah blah blah".

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

With all due respect to Ozzie in respect to APF (Australian Parachute Federation) rapid reports Vs RAA reports. There is a whole lot less to deal with in a parachute fatality. When you leave a aircraft you only have X amount of gear, and there are only five or so expected outcomes...one of which is impact with the ground.

 

Additionally there are very few sceneroes that haven't occurred at sometime in the past. The causes are often decided with the evidence present and usually with eyewitness report ...hence a more rapid diagnosis.

 

With aircraft it's a whole lot more complicated, engine , airframe WX, pilot, passenger, it just simply just takes a whole lot longer to move through the many sceneroes one by one.....it probabily is possibly to issue a rapid report within a day or two ....but it may be incorrect, and proved to be wrong at a latter date. Which would you prefer ?.................Maj....

 

 

[turboplanner]

I would prefer the rapid report, or "Preliminary Report"which ATSB terms it with a clear disclaimer that full investigation is required to determine the actual cause.

 

The actual cause of that particular crash will be critically important for closure for the loved ones, and for long term safety statistics, and actions needed to be taken to minimies a repeat.

 

However, any one of several close variants will provide timely lessons for all pilots especially student who may not have been aware of the speculated issues.

 

Furthermore, there have in the past been repetitive fatalities and injuries, before a cause has been legally established, and it does not harm for a preliminary report to make people aware that it might be worth looking at a certain hinge design, or a certain activity.

 

 

[facthunter]

Agree. (to both) The aeroplane scenario is far more complex in principle. You can complicate anything if you want to and you can try to over simplify too. We do need to improve. Learning from the misfortunes of others may be the only positive out of a tragic event. Also you won't live long enough to make all the mistakes yourself. WE don't (and won't) have CVR's and Flight data recorders but carrying a gps and mobile phones may do nearly as well. Timely access to remote sites will always present a challenge. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I would prefer the rapid report, or "Preliminary Report"which ATSB terms it with a clear disclaimer that full investigation is required to determine the actual cause.The actual cause of that particular crash will be critically important for closure for the loved ones, and for long term safety statistics, and actions needed to be taken to minimies a repeat.

 

However, any one of several close variants will provide timely lessons for all pilots especially student who may not have been aware of the speculated issues.

 

Furthermore, there have in the past been repetitive fatalities and injuries, before a cause has been legally established, and it does not harm for a preliminary report to make people aware that it might be worth looking at a certain hinge design, or a certain activity.

Well you are only speculating here Turbo. I'm sure the accident has been adequetly investigated by suitably trained persons, and I'm sure we will be notified of the cause or causes in due time as suggested way back in post # 48.......Maj.....

 

 

[68volksy]

I don't think it is any benefit to criticise RAA with a broad brush I know personally that I lack in quiet a few points but it isn't the fault of my training, nobody is perfect once they get their certificate/licence and to broadly criticise the trainers based on a couple of examples seems very unfair to me. GA has a lot more going for it in regards to certification ect but the majority of us RAA people don't want the extra expense and are happy to increase our risk by a small amount to save money which is often the difference between flying or not flying. I have nothing against GA and think that we both need to work together better (not join but appreciate that we both want to aviate)Personally some of the worst airmanship and flaunting of rules that I have seen has been by GA pilots so to say its only RAA is stupid and you are only kidding yourself, there are rule breakers/dodgy operators on both sides and its not profitable to point the finger at the other blokes.

I think most on this forum are trying to do their best. "the majority of us RAA people don't want the extra expense and are happy to increase our risk by a small amount to save money which is often the difference between flying or not flying" - that's exactly the point of RAA and i'm all for that. If everyone takes responsibility for their actions and any potential damage to the public is minimal then it's all systems go! The issue is when an RAA pilot puts a 14 year old into the seat beside them and it's only at the coroners inquest that the parents learn the pilot built and maintained the aircraft themselves with little to no oversight and the ill-fated passenger effectively signed away any and all rights to any form of compensation whatsoever when they boarded the aircraft...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I think if its a clear cut safety issue, ie something on the aeroplane has failed, then the ATSB (or whoever) has a responsibility to get the inof out ASAP. That, after all is the point of any investigation, to hopefully prevent it happening again.

 

I was involved in an investigation of a double fatal helicopter prang a couple of years ago, everybody pretty much knew on the day why the crash occured. But because it was quite clearly a human error, the investigation didnt say much about it for about a year.

 

Where as the identical accident that occurred one year (to the day) previously (another R44 laid over and killed 2 people), was found very quickly to be a component failure. This finding was released very quickly in the prelim report.

 

Mind you. The actual cause of death in BOTH (and many many more) was the post impact fire, not the accident itself.

 

With all the weight of evidence, factual findings and dozens of lives lost around the world, it still took many many deaths before CASA stepped in and made a safety decision to upgrade the SB to and AD regarding the fuel tanks. And, I might add, it was only after considerable pressure from the community that they did act.

 

The point im making is, knowledge is the key. We can't hold our breath waiting for CASA or the ATSB to keep us safe. Its simply not going to happen. But, with knowledge, we can make decisions ourselves. There is no way in the world I would have sat in an R44 without the bladder tank mod done, even BEFORE its became an AD.

 

because I had knowledge of what to expect if it even just laid on its side.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well you are only speculating here Turbo. I'm sure the accident has been adequetly investigated by suitably trained persons, and I'm sure we will be notified of the cause or causes in due time as suggested way back in post # 48.......Maj.....

Yes, I'm promoting the value of speculating as a learning tool, because that's about all we get in RAA accidents.

 

I have no question about the suitability of the investigators.

 

However, Jim's carefully worded #48 post is our problem; I don't doubt he will try to provide what is legally available, but police procedures and obligations to the Coroner will not give us early information which could prevent further repeats, and I've made the point before that the Coronial system is difficult to get information from, even after the several years it might take to conclude the process, and the police/coronial process also often doesn't give us the information we need to take future corrective action.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Yes, I'm promoting the value of speculating as a learning tool, because that's about all we get in RAA accidents.I have no question about the suitability of the investigators.

However, Jim's carefully worded #48 post is our problem; I don't doubt he will try to provide what is legally available, but police procedures and obligations to the Coroner will not give us early information which could prevent further repeats, and I've made the point before that the Coronial system is difficult to get information from, even after the several years it might take to conclude the process, and the police/coronial process also often doesn't give us the information we need to take future corrective action.

Speculating is no good Turbs if your beating up a completely wrong bush track, and may also be counterproductive ultimately............Maj....

 

 

[rankamateur]

Personally some of the worst airmanship and flaunting of rules that I have seen has been by GA pilots so to say its only RAA is stupid and you are only kidding yourself, there are rule breakers/dodgy operators on both sides and its not profitable to point the finger at the other blokes.

You are probrably more likely to get a friendly tap on the shoulder and get corrected by other pilots when you do something silly in RAA flying, seems to me that the egos are just a touch duller.