No RAA crashes

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I looked at this thread and immediately thought 'valid question'. We should always be striving for zero harm, but in reality we know that will never happen. I would also agree with Nev, that any weekend where more people went home to their families than the previous few, should be considered a 'win'!

 

 

[Teckair]

(comment removed by Mod..abusive)

 

I can't attest for the 3 axis crashes, but when it comes to the 2 axis I understand that majority were HGFA registered

Are you trying to say the PPC was HGFA registered? The question was in regard to last weekend what 3 axis crashes are you talking about? What majority of 2 axis HGFA registered crashes are you on about?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Without getting the exact figures:

 

The death rate is nowhere near one a week (52 per year).

 

It's around 6 per year which is still unacceptable, and I can understand that Shafs, like me would be very frustrated with this.

 

As far as people trotting out the old excuse "You will never get to zero", If you think you can't you won't, and the byproduct of that attitude is that organizations don't make the maximum effort to reduce avoidable statistics.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's NOT an excuse Turbs It is a fact. If you DID actually aim to ACHIEVE it there would be NO flying. I qualified my statement fully anyhow. We continue to spend money on road deaths when there might be ways of reducing deaths in other areas for less expenditure. A death is a death.

 

You can't put a price on a life sounds good , but we do, all the time. You come to a point when the activity is so restricted it doesn't happen, either by cost or complexity and restriction. There has to be a balance. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's NOT an excuse Turbs It is a fact. If you DID actually aim to ACHIEVE it there would be NO flying. I qualified my statement fully anyhow. We continue to spend money on road deaths when there might be ways of reducing deaths in other areas for less expenditure. A death is a death.You can't put a price on a life sounds good , but we do, all the time. You come to a point when the activity is so restricted it doesn't happen, either by cost or complexity and restriction. There has to be a balance. Nev

We'll you seem to keep blanking out what I've said several times now, so I'll say it again:

 

In speedway, in Victoria we have not killed a driver for nearly 50 years - that's ZERO fatalities for all those years.

 

In fact I've started researching around the groups to see if we can pinpoint the last fatality, so we can make a formal announcement.

 

I believe, but haven't researched it, that there are other sporting groups that have gone from a dangerous activity with a regular fatality rate to zero.

 

I'll be the first to agree that because of the decentralised and solitary nature of flying the it may never get to zero

 

Similarly there are five other states and two territories, about 70 out of 105 tracks who have not achieved zero over the 50 year period.

 

To say that if you did actually aim to achieve zero there would be no flying is just plain wrong - although I'll grant you that if the actions taken to date are irrelevant to the causes,

 

then your statement holds true.

 

It's all a matter of doing your homework and identifying the causes, THEN setting the solutions.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's a lot of reasons it will never get to zero. One being you have to get back to earth when you are airborne. You also don't know which ones are suicides, and lots of other factors

 

You can't make the airframes strong enough not to fatigue. or break

 

You can't control wind gusts willy willys, hail icing IMC. So may things where you could just pullover in a car. Not so with flying.

 

I doubt there are not many on this forum more focussed on safety than myself. It's the main reason I post. I know I'm not that effective here, same as people will fly into powerlines out there, or run out of fuel or leave nuts loose.

 

You get to a stage of less and less for the dollar spent after you get to a reasonable level of control.

 

Of course you do the most cost effective thing first. That's just common sense and practical economics.

 

You use motorsport examples a lot and I have been there too. I've seen plenty of accidents there and on the road but I don't believe you can just apply ground thinking to the flying situation.

 

You will never make watching rally driving on roads safe either. It's not a racetrack with barriers and flying is not either. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I doubt there are not many on this forum more focussed on safety than myself. It's the main reason I post.

I don't doubt that for a minute.

 

Same as people will fly into powerlines out there, or run out of fuel or leave nuts loose.

There are three examples which can be worked on.

 

You get to a stage of less and less for the dollar spent after you get to a reasonable level of control.

Yes, and control, or a controlling body is always rebelled against, and that's why that system (the "Prescription" system for want of a better epithet) has been replaced by self-administration where if a CWA lady cooks some date scones she carries the can for any food poisoning.

 

Of course you do the most cost effective thing first. That's just common sense and practical economics.

Which is to let the participants control their own cost via self-administration. They usually quickly get those costs under control (as in the CWA example, via certification)

 

You use motorsport examples a lot and I have been there too. I've seen plenty of accidents there and on the road but I don't believe you can just apply ground thinking to the flying situation.

No you can't, but the principles which have worked there - specifically identifying a cause, and specifically addressing that cause is what has won through.

 

You will never make watching rally driving on roads safe either. It's not a racetrack with barriers and flying is not either. Nev

No I agree; the example I gave was very specifically speedway which pioneered many of the safety items later adopted by the likes of CAMS and Rally groups, and these people are in a similar position to RA with an ongoing toll.

It's ridiculous for example to see F1 and motorbike racing statistics improve out of sight when tracks were redesigned to remove static objects, barriers were designed to spit cars back out at an angle so they could wash off speed, and both cars and bikes were protected a greater part of the time from hitting the barriers by sand traps, yet in Hill Climbs and Rallies you can have 10/10 driving right beside large gum trees where a mistake can be terminal.

 

One of the saddest examples of the difference was where Peter Brock in his last circuit race, at Goodwood, UK, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=peter+brock+goodwood showed almost perfect driving skills, four wheel drifting for most of the race, then hooped on a plane straight back to WA to compete in a rally in a forest, with none of the safety features which were so apparent at Goodwood, unloaded an axle and slid straight into a roadside tree which killed him instantly.

 

These forms of sport where some branches have achieved success all have to stand on their own two feet and assess their own futures.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Saying that we cannot get a zero toll will without doubt become a self filling prophecy.

 

 

[jetjr]

CASA and workcover have that zero as their target

 

Whilst noble aim , it has massive cost and surprisingly often means an activity is no longer conducted where there is significant oversight

 

Its moved elsewhere or overseas

 

The only way to sustainably and reliably get to zero is to stop OR achieve a acceptable level of risk. Despite the unpalatable side of it, there is a limit to cost can be spent.

 

TP, id suggest plenty less patient than us have blocked your posts, they wont recieve or see them

 

 

[facthunter]

To say zero is unobtainable is a fact of life (or death). In a physical world, where you choose to be at height or close to something at a high speed you have the potential IF anything goes wrong to be dead. Being under a tree on a Golf course in a thunderstorm is probably as dangerous as flying.

 

The risk of doing most things can be calculated. Actuarial assessments are used to calculate premiums for insurance companys etc

 

Perhaps I could suggest if more people flew actively there might be less suicides. IF CASA stop them there might be more suicides. as a hypothetical.

 

In wartime when the risk of being killed is high suicide rates drop right off

 

I don't believe that recognising that zero is not possible makes anyone thinking about it, really act more dangerously. If you have a view that accidents just happen or when your times up, or everybody makes mistakes, They can be cop outs from making a good effort to get real about attitudes to a culture of safety. I've had a lot say "If I have to go to that amount of trouble I might as well give up flying" Well most give it up when they are dead, Ive observed (unless they are little angels). Nev

 

 

[alf jessup]

Lets be serious, as long as human and machinery work together there will be deaths, we can strive all we like to reduce the road toll to zero but that will never happen and that is the same for aviation and anything else in the modern mechanical world.

 

Humans are human and make some costly mistakes, you cannot control how other humans think or the decisions they make.

 

You are in control of your own destiny only and I guess it all depends on how much you value living, every accident (crash) has some form of human input to make it happen whether it be mechanical, medical, poor judgment, impatience, get there-itis and the list goes on & on.

 

Sad fact with aviation as great as it is it is very harsh on mistakes made, many get away with it for years, many push there luck & have gotten away with it but many haven't.

 

As defensive as I drive & as disciplined as I fly I still realise that it CAN happen to me, I just try to minimise the risks on the roads & in the air as I am not perfect as none of us are, when flying as much as a hack as I am I try to strive for perfection every time I leave the ground until I am back on the ground & in the hangar.

 

If your every reading about me on this forum in a bad or sad way means I messed up in some way shape or form, and guess what I'm only human like the rest of you so the sooner we all realise that it doesn't always happen to someone else the better we all might be.

 

Alf

 

 

[SDQDI]

Turbo you keep bringing up speedway, which is a good example of how things can be made better, but remember things on the track are fairly controlled. You could say that it has a high amount of regulation (whether governmental or self doesn't matter) you drive a circuit, with barriers all going the same direction ect

 

It would be more suitable to compare speedway to commercial aviation ops. How many people 'recreationally' driving die annually? You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Yes we can cut down and regulate accidents out BUT only at the reduction of our recreational freedoms. Finding the balance between freedom and regulation is hard and you will never make everyone happy.

 

As for the three points of failure

 

1, running into powerlines. We are lawfully meant to be well away from them, introducing more laws won't affect those that have a disregard for our current laws.

 

2, running out of fuel. Last time I checked we were meant to flight plan to have a set reserve of fuel for the trip. So putting extra regs on that won't stop human stuff ups.

 

3, leaving nuts loose. I also think there are already rules against this, but same as the fuel, we get distracted we are human. I've heard examples of plane maintenance being triple checked only to find they all missed important things.

 

At the end of the day we aren't flying professionally we are doing it for recreation.

 

 

[2tonne]

Well put SDQDI. I also cannot see the relevance of speedway to recreational flying.

 

 

[facthunter]

The good thing going about our type of flying is that YOU are more in control of your destiny than many other pastimes. You can be on a bike or motorbike sitting at the lights waiting for them to change an some person texting collects you and you are severely injured or dead.

 

A tyre can be spiked and you deviate from your lane into oncoming traffic. Kids can throw bricks at you from bridges Some road rage idiot wants to play games with you on some remote road etc.

 

WE can design, build, service and fly our own aircraft. Accept the responsibility and do it well and you will be fine. You need some considerable knowledge to do that, but it's available. Doesn't have to be dangerous. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo you keep bringing up speedway, which is a good example of how things can be made better, but remember things on the track are fairly controlled. You could say that it has a high amount of regulation (whether governmental or self doesn't matter) you drive a circuit, with barriers all going the same direction ect

I mentioned speedway just as an example of one of the sports that IS achieving zero (in Victoria). Sure, you probably won't get zero in recreational flying for some of the things you mention, but right now we are nowhere near being able to look at zero; remember the President's words at the Cessnock Meeting?

 

We've had this discussion before, some months ago with a detailed comparison of the differences, and also the common principles which will reduce fatalities, so I won't go over it again, but some key commonalities are:

 

• Controlling the Environment: e.g. airfields that are not surrounded by forests, making every EFATO a fatal one.
   
   
  
• Removing alcohol from the equation
   
   
  
• Controlling the machine: e.g. regular inspections at airfields by volunteers, annual inspection by volunteers
   
   
  
• Controlling behaviour: e.g. voluntary safety officer on duty, incident reporting policy
   
   
  
• Education Policy
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

It would be more suitable to compare speedway to commercial aviation ops. How many people 'recreationally' driving die annually? You are comparing apples to oranges.

Why? Speedway and Recreational Aviation are both recreational sports, both have about the same number of participants, there are/were 105 race tracks - not a huge difference from RA airfields. Neither are commercial.

 

Yes we can cut down and regulate accidents out BUT only at the reduction of our recreational freedoms.

I wouldn't use the word regulate, but we can certainly cut down accidents without reducing recreational freedoms; remember we have the choice to do that, our way.

 

Finding the balance between freedom and regulation is hard and you will never make everyone happy.

I agree, you can see that on every safety thread. The regulator is actually your hip pocket if you stuff up and someone sues you. So far not much of this has happened.

 

As for the three points of failure1, running into powerlines. We are lawfully meant to be well away from them, introducing more laws won't affect those that have a disregard for our current laws.

2, running out of fuel. Last time I checked we were meant to flight plan to have a set reserve of fuel for the trip. So putting extra regs on that won't stop human stuff ups.

 

3, leaving nuts loose. I also think there are already rules against this, but same as the fuel, we get distracted we are human. I've heard examples of plane maintenance being triple checked only to find they all missed important things.

I didn't say they were three points of failure, just "There are three examples which can be worked on", but to comment:

 

1. No more laws are required, the 500 ft rule is a good one., but how come when someone posts a photo of a beach beat up, or low flying there isn't a message from RAA

 

or a proactive program to continually warn new pilots about the common consequences, and how 500' plus keeps you much safer?

 

2. No more extra regs required your not just "meant" , it's law with a heavy penalty, yet whenever the subject has come up, I've never seen RAA point to the regulation or explain why it's so critical, and when people post about "outlandings" (which are really forced landings) there's no umbrella there to use their mistake to save others and save aircraft damage.

 

3. What you are saying is true, but a lot of people are not taught, or don't know the systems in place and when they post about outrageously poor standards of build or maintenance, I can't remember any time when an official has actively stepped in and said "This is wrong" Some of the examples you give are quite correct, and point to Human Factors, but instead of correcting the Human Factors syllabus to address these issues, there's a vacuum.

 

You are not going to do all this in one sitting, but at least there can be an effort to make a start.

 

Note the above are only loose examples which have come up in this thread, not necessarily key issues or priority issues - just issues as examples.

 

At the end of the day we aren't flying professionally we are doing it for recreation.

A professional is usually hit a bit harder if there's an accident, because he's supposed to know his trade, but the distinction to an amateur is not a big gap; I wouldn't take the risk of looking at it that way.

All in all the current rate of fatalities should be of serious concern.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The thought of using cyanide in gold ore processing frightens communities. The reality is that only one person in Australia has died of accidental cyanide poisoning, in 1904. But people still protest about its use. The difference between perception and actual risk of harm is huge for many activities.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's an external pressure we face, particularly in the Cities where there can be 50,000 people in the circuit area.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

AUF / RAA had only one fatal accident in 1996 and 2008, we are not dealing with insurmountable numbers like the national road toll.

 

See the statistics and analysis here http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/safety/intro2.html#accident_stats by John Brandon.

 

 

 

If zero seems too high a target, perhaps "less than the 5 year average" or "less than last year" or a "Fatality Free Friday" or even nominate a Fatality Free month and push education and awareness the month before.

 

 

 

When I hear people saying "you can't have zero" I ask, "well what number do you want?" I can see the slogan now "We aim for 5 fatalities a year" and wonder to myself about some deranged bureaucrat demanding the other 4 fatalities when we only achieved one. Ahh KPIs!

 

 

Sue

 

 

[alf jessup]

Its not that we can't have zero Sue its just we won't as the law of averages show us that every year.

 

Can we cut the fatality rate I think we can but only if everyone is on board and fly's as safe as they possibly can and don't take unnecessary risks, no beat ups, not pushing on, no kick the tyres and light the fires attitude.

 

Alf

 

 

[turboplanner]

One of the reasons I talk the language I do, is my marketing background, and FV you have hit the problem exactly.

 

On here, we have people arguing against their loss of freedoms.

 

Out in the bigger world, where politicians live, people over and over again say "one death is one death too many" OR "if we took the driver's licence medical away from them and made them get an aviation medical, and it saved only one life, it would be worth it." On many occasions, those comments, which are outrageous to us, carry the day in a meeting.

 

 

[turboplanner]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/journey-to-zero-road-toll-will-not-be-easy-minister-warns-20150602-ghf5ds.html

[farri]

One expert who believes technological advances will do far more to reduce the road toll than any other factor is Gavin Smith, president of Bosch Australia.

 

 

 

"More than 90 per cent of all traffic accidents are caused by human error, so if you can reduce the level of human error then you immediately get a disproportionate impact on the road toll," Mr Smith said.

 

 

A road toll target of zero could therefore only be achieved in a future where vehicles are fully automated, or "driverless", he said.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well the Minister had already put the zero toll target in perspective with his comment: "If we're not aiming towards zero what are we aiming for, an acceptable level of death?

 

And he set an interim target of <200 deaths/year by 2020.

 

However, the message which is important to us is that The State of Victoria is about to introduce some draconian "safety" measures over just 6 deaths last year and 3 this year.

 

It doesn't matter that Victoria's road toll is way below the National average, it doesn't matter that the 100 to 110 km/hr zones are also in the maximum fatigue category, it doesn't matter if evidence is showing that people in the 40 km/hr zones are being killed by non-speeding drivers, this is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that you can trigger when statistics hit the sensitive nerve of Government.

 

The South Australian Government is going even further with a plan to reduce all their 110 km/hr limits back to 100, and slowing speeds right across the board in preference to fixing road infrastructure. There is an online survey, which I'd hope all South Australia pilots have filled out, which also refers to widening blood/alcohol offences to specify more vehicle interlock fitments (about $2,000) and extend the period they are driven, and a number of other actions which seem extreme.

 

Don't raise your head above the trench right now seems a very good policy.

 

 

[jetjr]

All good points

 

An issue raised with this is that each of these safety efforts is insular and looks at the activity happening when the death occured

 

If human factors are the key cause of many, accross a range of activities, then severely tightening one activity wont necessarily prevent that persons injuriy or death. They would often participate in a range of risky behaviour and probably behave similarly. If one avenue is restricted and they will play elsewhere. Or as was said could get depressed and have mental problems as a result.

 

Ill bet in this small group here, involved in aviation, more than average numbers of people involved in racing, bikes or other riskier activities.

 

Insurance companies know this and its why when you partake on one risky pastime you pay extra % on whole policy.

 

The whole safty management system has to be about minimimization not an acceptable number of fatalities and when delaing with such small numbers long term averages become important

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's correct.