farri Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 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?. Havn`t seen anyone here, say, we should have an acceptable level death! ......Could have missed it though!....I certainly have never said it.Certainly never was me Don`t raise you head above the trench right now If that comment is aimed at me as I suspect it is!... I`ve never been in a trench in all my life and I`m not about to start now, I don`t hide from anything....If I`m not welcome on this forum, then that`s fine!.... I`ll leave. If you are so fairdinkum about zero accidents you might like to know that I possibly have taken more people flying for recreation and introduced them to the sport, than anyone else in this country!... With my instruction, I put my life on the line in the early days and saved lives and I`ve still got the 00 to continue taking those who want to see what flying for fun really is!....In 30 years, I`ve never had one accident or so much as scratched myself or anyone in the Drifter with me, as for the future! Well!..I don`t know that anymore than you do. Frank. Ps, I`m not interested in a slinging match with you! 2
turboplanner Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 No, it was not aimed anywhere near you. It was a suggestion that we don't have to lift the toll by very much to provoke Governments into draconian reactions which we then have no control over.
farri Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 No, it was not aimed anywhere near you. Thank you! I appreciate your reply! Cheers. Frank.
DonRamsay Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Regulation in aviation is pretty extreme in detail. But fatalities in RA are not a result of inadequate regulation even if every Coroner thinks that they can prevent a similar death to the one they are investigating by introducing more detailed regulation. The simple fact is that if you took out from the fatality stats blatant breaches of regulations like low flying; trying to fly without fuel; flying into IMC without the proper equipment, training an and qualification; or, flying single engine aircraft over tiger country, for example, then the stats would look almost acceptable. The reality for me is that if I fly a reasonably new, well maintained aircraft within the regulations and normal good airmanship that it is actually quite a safe activity. The Courts have labelled it a risky business because there seems to be a propensity for pilots to do unwise things whether it be in poor preparation or dumb stuff in the air. How on Earth do you prevent people from running out of fuel? Flying into the dark or IMC? My new Sling comes with a Garmin G3X Touch with abundant safety features like audible warnings in case you haven't been monitoring your gauges. It monitors fuel flow and advises how much longer you can stay aloft. I tells you Distance to Go in NM and time. It will fly the plane for you while you look out the window. It will monitor traffic and give alerts. Yet even with that extreme level of assistance you would not have to look that far to find a pilot capable of ignoring his/her training, all the instrumentation and find a new way for controlled flight into terrain. You can promote good airmanship until you go blue in the face and you just might persuade a few on the edge but, in the end pilots will find a way to destroy their aircraft and themselves. I am not saying that all crashes are human factors (pilot error) there has been a notable one not that long ago that involved a possibly unpredictable airframe failure. In Europe the ballistic parachute was imposed on light aviation and if we are not careful, that could be imposed on RA. I agree we should, as an Association, be aiming for ZERO fatalities - I know I am on a personal basis. I believe we (RAAus) can do more and are doing more with the coming Safety System. In the end without safe flying we don't/won't have anything. 2 7
facthunter Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I think the context in Victoria is that the figures have been flat or deteriorating. I don't know what each death/injury relates to. Is per vehicle/ km or something sensible or just compare total to last years deaths. Sometimes you can reduce deaths but have more serious injuries. People bump into you texting when walking. The same sort of people will drive into you when in a car Texting. Drugs must be a problem now. Country roads have a lot of factors. Fatigue on good highways and poor surfaces, stock ,animals / level crossings Semi's and dust on remote roads I've had my worst experiences with timber trucks in the Victorian Alps and Tasmania. Nev 1 1
turboplanner Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I've been expecting the hockey-stick effect for about five years now, because we are coming to the end of the "big change" impact of seat belts/RBT/massive crash improvements in construction (so these days someone can do the most stupid thing, and there they are still sitting uninjured inside a completely trashed car. I think the reason it hasn't happened before now is the huge improvement in highway infrastructure with cabling. I know you'll say the bikes go through the grater, but I've been having a few discussions lately and it seems that where people have been hurt it is more a case of incorrect cable installation. As much as they look tight, they are designed as a slack resistance, to deform quite substantially, progressively like an aircraft carrier arrestor. It would be interesting now with a few years under the belt to see what the bike guys are saying.
facthunter Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The cable can be supplied with a motorcycle friendly cover . The fact it exists says it all. We don't do it so motorcycles are more endangered than with the armco and lower section. Nev
turboplanner Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I haven't checked the statistics, but I would think there would be less fatigue crashes and highway excursions with bikes than cars, mainly because they are away from the stop/start/didn't see you issues and able to cruise at a more constant speed. BTE have an online record of every fatal in Australia, going back a lot of years, with quite a lot available to the public, but I haven't checked the bikes to see if wire cables feature in any of the crashes.
farri Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Saying that we cannot get a zero toll will without doubt become a self filling prophecy. Geof, " Without Doubt" is a fairly positive comment!...I assume you have evidence, to suggest, the prophecy will come! There`s a tribe in the Amazon jungle who believe that if they shout at a tree long enough, the tree will finally give up and fall down. Frank. 1
turboplanner Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Franco, Sue has already told us that the AUF/RAA got fatalities down to 1 in 1996 and 1 in 2008. Right now, with a lot of Jabiru owners wanting to get the CASA instrument lifted, is not the time to be publicly broadcasting against anything other than a maximum safety effort. 1 1
farri Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 On the local TV news last night, it was reported that the death toll, for 2015 , from road accidents in the Cairns and surrounding area, now total 20.....A police spokesman said not one of those accidents was caused by factors other than, human error. There has been an enormous amount of work and money, put into improving the roads into Cairns and surrounding areas, yet the accidents continue to occur. Setting a zero accident target, is vastly different to achieving it...It will take more than, intention, money and better roads! Frank.
Old Koreelah Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I haven't checked the statistics, but I would think there would be less fatigue crashes and highway excursions with bikes than cars, mainly because they are away from the stop/start/didn't see you issues and able to cruise at a more constant speed. BTE have an online record of every fatal in Australia, going back a lot of years, with quite a lot available to the public, but I haven't checked the bikes to see if wire cables feature in any of the crashes. Even on stupidly long bike trips I have never nodded off; but have done so far too often in the comfort of my insulated road box. 1
turboplanner Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Even on stupidly long bike trips I have never nodded off; but have done so far too often in the comfort of my insulated road box. That's where my thoughts were going.
farri Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Franco, Sue has already told us that the AUF/RAA got fatalities down to 1 in 1996 and 1 in 2008.Right now, with a lot of Jabiru owners wanting to get the CASA instrument lifted, is not the time to be publicly broadcasting against anything other than a maximum safety effort. Ok! I get your point....Isn`t the Jabiru issue about the engine, itself ? I have never said, nor will I ever say, there`s anything wrong with setting a zero accident policy. I have always been and will continue to be, totally committed to zero accident..... Zero accident, isn`t only about regulations and making the safety margin ever wider. Frank.
Teckair Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Some years ago a bloke did a beat up and I told him it was a bad idea he said "he was just having a bit of fun" I said "yes but you are dead a long time". Sadly that guy is now dead after clipping the tops of some trees, I saw that coming but there was nothing I could do. A few months ago a cyclist swerved in front of my car I started a thread on the off topic section about it, there was quite a few who reckoned it was my fault despite the fact that I managed to avoid him. Last Monday a cyclist was killed less than 200 metres from where my incident occurred both times it was on a straight section of road. I have no problem with a target of zero accidents but sadly I think it will only ever be a target, you can't fix stupid and bad luck happens. 5
Geoff13 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Geof, " Without Doubt" is a fairly positive comment!...I assume you have evidence, to suggest, the prophecy will come!There`s a tribe in the Amazon jungle who believe that if they shout at a tree long enough, the tree will finally give up and fall down. Frank. If you want a University study Frank no I do not have that evidence but if we were to discuss my opinion of Uni's you would understand that I put little faith in them. And without doubt the Amazon Tribe are correct. It may not be the originators who see it but fall it shall. 1 1
farri Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I`ve had another magic carpet ride, late this afternoon! What I love to do most and what recreational flying for me is all about... That makes 3 afternoon flights, in a row, this week.... Keeping skills sharp, is more than just sitting in the aircraft, from point A, waiting to get to point B. As for the "Beat Up".....Anyone who flies, over and just above tree tops, is looking for trouble, no matter how you look at it or what you call it.... End of story! I walked into the house just as the TV news was reporting, a fatal road accident in the Brisbane area. I missed exactly where it occurred, but it looked to be in the Brisbane to the Gold Coast area.... Continuous trees on both sides of the road.... A car left highway and hit a tree....Prevention??? This particular day, I was driving my Toyota Hi Lux ute, along Mulgrave road, in Cairns, where the speed limit is 60k.... Ahead of me, on the left side of the road was a teenager on his push bike, going in the same direction..... Fortunately, I was keeping an eye on the guy..... When I got about 10 mts behind him, without warning, he and the bike went flying sideways and came down on the road...I braked hard but there wasn`t much I could do about going into the right hand lane...Had the guy not fallen to left,I would have run right over him, because I couldn`t stop in time...I stoped on the side of the road, ran back and he`d already picked himself up,unhurt....One truly lucky, young guy!...Prevention??? Frank.
farri Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 If you want a University study Frank no I do not have that evidence but if we were to discuss my opinion of Uni's you would understand that I put little faith in them.And without doubt the Amazon Tribe are correct. It may not be the originators who see it but fall it shall. Geoff, Don`t take it too seriously! I should have added ....I do know about the philosophy of the self fulfilling prophecy....Cheers. Frank.
facthunter Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I like " I've told you a million times not to exaggerate" Nev 1 2
Geoff13 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Geoff, Don`t take it too seriously! I should have added ....I do know about the philosophy of the self fulfilling prophecy....Cheers.Frank. Frank there are very few things in life that I take too seriously. In fact I don't even take myself to seriously. Safety however is one of those very few things. 1 1
ev17ifly2 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Frank there are very few things in life that I take too seriously. In fact I don't even take myself to seriously.Safety however is one of those very few things.[/QUOT At the end of the day everyone is responsible for their own safety ! Education not legislation is the key. Down here in Vic we are drowning in draconian laws, policing and mechanical safety devices in order to keep the road toll down, however we still hand out licences with no human factors or vehicle control training. We have dumbed the population down to a sub cretin level yet expect them apply skill and intelligence when in control of a vehicle.
Teckair Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 And without doubt the Amazon Tribe are correct. It may not be the originators who see it but fall it shall. With that sort of logic how can we go wrong? So you think the tree falls because the Tribe yelled at it?
Geoff13 Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 With that sort of logic how can we go wrong? So you think the tree falls because the Tribe yelled at it? I didn't say that, simply said that if they do it long enough then they will see it fall. 1 1
jetjr Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 There is a worrying difference between road accident safety programs and that of say RAA aircraft, The road safety measures are largely funded by the taxpayer, load spread over millions of road users Any safety pushes towards zero target will be funded by RAA members or more precisely aircraft owners, only a few thousand. If, as we claim, the zero target is admirable but unachievable, where do the costs stop?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now