Does anyone have more information on this NSW South Coast accident?

[biggles]

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Duplicate-insepction-bulletin.jpg

[turboplanner]

Judging by the responses I keep seeing on this website, almost nobody in rec. aviation has ever even glanced at one of the design standards. They all state what they imagine the requirement should be, without ever actually looking it up.

Judging by my experience, I'd say less than 5% of the population have this ability or interest.

 

In the automotive industry we've achieved a huge reduction in the fatality rate by many great actions including improvements in design, and among these has been the Australian Design Rule system.

 

One example was the ADR for truck braking which prescribed a certain stopping distance under maximum braking at full axle loads without any part of the vehicle moving out of a three metre wide lane.

 

The manufacturers achieved this by correctly distributing the weight to each axle by strategically placed concrete blocks.

 

However, when a body was fitted there was a chance that it would be too long, overloading the rear axle, or too short, overloading the front axle, so a Code of Practice was introduced requiring W&B calculations to decide body length, ensuring the truck with the body on it was capable of staying in the three metre lane. Despite the clear meaning, and the simple calculations required, there are people around today who still think this is voluntary, including State Fire Services with fleets of out of balance and overweight trucks. At one stage I estimated that 40% of new trucks going on to the roads

 

were legal.

 

The third tier of the safety system was a requirement for truck operators to perform calculations or weigh their trucks before they left the depot to ensure the loaded truck didn't deviate from the three metre lane.

 

Rollovers and house intrusions have reduced from that time, but everyone knew someone who didn't care......until Chain of Responsibility came along.

 

Now the people who ordered the transport became liable for their part in allowing a truck to leave their facility out of balance, so the first weighings have started and the first transport operators have been told to rearrange their loads before leaving, (as, by the way, their great great grandfathers used to do with their wagons), or have their contracts cancelled.

 

STILL they don't want to read the design requirements and do the simple calculations with a hand held calculator, so I was asked to write a loading program for a fleet which I've been doing for the past three weeks, so the system can load the truck for them.

 

 

[Geoff13]

And how many companies have actually been knocked off under Cor. Mr plod on the side of the road does not give a stuff about who loaded the truck, he cares only that it is heavy and he has a dumb a***d truckie there that he can write up.

 

I see it every day. One of Brisbanes largest ports have implemented a sytem that allows them to charge transport companies for cor without even having the infrastructure working to provide the service.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Judging by my experience, I'd say less than 5% of the population have this ability or interest.In the automotive industry we've achieved a huge reduction in the fatality rate by many great actions including improvements in design, and among these has been the Australian Design Rule system.

 

One example was the ADR for truck braking which prescribed a certain stopping distance under maximum braking at full axle loads without any part of the vehicle moving out of a three metre wide lane.

 

The manufacturers achieved this by correctly distributing the weight to each axle by strategically placed concrete blocks.

 

However, when a body was fitted there was a chance that it would be too long, overloading the rear axle, or too short, overloading the front axle, so a Code of Practice was introduced requiring W&B calculations to decide body length, ensuring the truck with the body on it was capable of staying in the three metre lane. Despite the clear meaning, and the simple calculations required, there are people around today who still think this is voluntary, including State Fire Services with fleets of out of balance and overweight trucks. At one stage I estimated that 40% of new trucks going on to the roads

 

were legal.

 

The third tier of the safety system was a requirement for truck operators to perform calculations or weigh their trucks before they left the depot to ensure the loaded truck didn't deviate from the three metre lane.

 

Rollovers and house intrusions have reduced from that time, but everyone knew someone who didn't care......until Chain of Responsibility came along.

 

Now the people who ordered the transport became liable for their part in allowing a truck to leave their facility out of balance, so the first weighings have started and the first transport operators have been told to rearrange their loads before leaving, (as, by the way, their great great grandfathers used to do with their wagons), or have their contracts cancelled.

 

STILL they don't want to read the design requirements and do the simple calculations with a hand held calculator, so I was asked to write a loading program for a fleet which I've been doing for the past three weeks, so the system can load the truck for them.

Are you aware that the ADRs were originally formulated by CASA's Ron Smith, who set out to apply the philosophy of the aircraft design standards, but reduced to a codified form as far as possible? Ron worked with me on the original draft of CASR Part 21 - and in the process, gained such an understanding of FAR part 21 that the FAA invited him over there to explain it to them. The aircraft design standards were written in their current format as a result of Ralph Nader, who pointed out that one should legislate for the end, not the means - and as a consequence aircraft certification got a whole lot more costly. One needs to be aware of the vast library of Advisory Circulars that support FAR 23 etc; especially FAA AC 23.15 thru AC 23.19

 

 

[turboplanner]

No I wasn't aware of him. The ADR system works very well for Australia, has remained simple and easy to understand but it did take out amateur vehicle builders like me because of the high cost of certification which can only be amortised over mass production.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And how many companies have actually been knocked off under Cor. Mr plod on the side of the road does not give a stuff about who loaded the truck, he cares only that it is heavy and he has a dumb a***d truckie there that he can write up.I see it every day. One of Brisbanes largest ports have implemented a sytem that allows them to charge transport companies for cor without even having the infrastructure working to provide the service.

A lot of companies have been fined under CoR for intimidating suppliers and drivers, and a lot of people have been tried, convicted and in some cases locked up. In one report I saw all the directors of one company were fined tens of thousands of dollars. You'll see the reports in the newspapers and truck magazines.

 

Sounds like you are close to the painful roadside interface, but a few years ago I was involved in meetings which the Victorian Police Highway Taskforce attended and they were one of the strongest proponents of taking the blame off the truck driver and putting it on the people who forced him to work illegally. They had to book the driver by law, but they did listen to the stories about how drivers were told they wouldn't have a job if they didn't do it.

 

The new fatigue laws changed truck design overnight and I was right in the middle of that, trying to fit bigger sleepers etc.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry it's so complicated.

 

 

[Geoff13]

is this a truck or a plane forum?

I think it is a logical discussion about how legislation can affect design and use of equipment.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Andy, there's a quite strong "We don' need no steenking engineers!" sentiment out there. In the aviation mainstream, professional engineers go over the design against the design standard, line by line, and write reports to show the thing complies. CASA reads the reports, and there is often a ding-dong argument - but the end result can only be that CASA is truly satisfied that the aircraft complies with the design standard. That process takes several man-years and costs a lot of money.The philosophy behind DIY experimental aircraft (however described) is diametrically opposite to that; it allows people to slap anything together and fly it - the only constraint being where and under what conditions they may do so. So the whole thing is opposite.

 

Judging by the responses I keep seeing on this website, almost nobody in rec. aviation has ever even glanced at one of the design standards. They all state what they imagine the requirement should be, without ever actually looking it up.

 

What I am advocating is using the established standard as guidance material for a risk analysis. The sort of question/answer that could be developed might include such matters of fact as "Does the elevator trim system drive the elevators independently of the main elevator control system (yes/no)" - etcetera.

When I first had the brainwave of the avocet in 2008 I took the concept drg. To show Rod in bundy , he smiled and said : you'll be a lot wiser in the end :

His advice was to start with FAA part 23 . It was good advice and I constantly made reference to it , I found most of it common sense engineering principles and practices that have been accumulated . In other words good advice and guidance .

 

I have found that gleaning the wheat from the side of the field makes just as nutritious bread , as the wheat that the master 's have reaped from the centre !

 

Mike .

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Well, we now have the equivalent of an FAA AC, i.e. a simple straightforward explanation, in regard to trailers; I used it when building my glider trailer. You mostly do not have to re-invent the wheel; just read the reference and apply it. Same principle applies with aircraft. Look at FAA AC 23.15 thru 23.19. They don't give all the answers, but they do give quite a few of them.