Flying Safely

[K-man]

Rather than tag onto an existing thread I'll throw this one into a separate ring. Following on from the discussion on 29 deaths in 29 months, I saw this on the RAA website and had a quick look.

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Policy-on-RA-Aus-Safety-Policy-effective-1-April-20151.pdf

 

When we are discussing incidents and accidents it is always someone else's fault. We are all such great flyers that when something does go wrong it must be the fault of our instructor or maybe even the scope of the instruction was inadequate. Probably, deep down, it has to be RA's fault because they give out the certificates.

 

So here is the RAA view on safety ...

 

4.4 Our commitment is to:

a. develop and imbed a safety culture in all our recreational flying activities that recognises the importance and value of effective aviation safety management and acknowledges at all times that safety is paramount;

 

b. etc, etc.

... but is it realistic?

 

RAA has to be seen to be doing something to make recreational flying safer but short of legislating us all out of the sky it is just not possible for an organisation to do that. We have to take responsibility for our own safety and our own training.

 

Recently we had a Piper Proficiency Program run at Lilydale and it made me wonder why we couldn't have a similar sort of programme provided by RAA. It would be self funding so no additional charge to members and may even be eligible for government subsidy if promoted correctly.

 

Does anyone know if it has been tried?

 

 

[facthunter]

Some Insurance companies gave discounts to people who had done certain courses ie Human Factors. Anything good would have the backing of such bodies. A lot of those statements are "motherhood " ones and appear to serve no real purpose other than state an obvious aim.

 

SPECIFIC examples of proposed actions, study programmes and rules should follow.. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Re Piper Proficiency Program

 

Whilst I agree with such a program, I don't see how RAA could realistically do anything similar due to the extreme range of aircraft types/performance involved. Certainly something run on specific types would an advantage, but I consider this would have to be arranged by individual "groups" privately and not by the overall organisation i.e. A suitably "qualified" person doing a presentation on a particular type (and I exclude self proclaimed experts here).

 

Whilst not involving flying proficiency (this should be covered in flying training) , but maintenance proficiency can be addressed by manufacturer maintenance courses where available (obviously harder for a non-Australian product unless the distributor gets involved)

 

A hands on course provided by a manufacturer/distributor would be far superior to the TWO L1 courses I have done (1 face to face sponsored by RAA &CASA and the other online waste of time )

 

Having said that I note that maintenance does not seem to be a major contributor to the accident rate we are experiencing.

 

 

[facthunter]

It was in one of the worst ones. Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

Did anyone notice that the RAAus policy became effective on 1st April?

 

How can I take that seriously?

 

 

[K-man]

What was running around the back of my mind was to have a bbq fly-in day, maybe with some agents, maybe with some instructors (paid) maybe some level 2s or lame or whatever. Piper actually had a partners programme giving non flying partners the opportunity to land the plane if the pilot was incapacitated. Just a range of activities that add to pilot knowledge and have a good day out. A reasonable charge would pay for those who needed to be paid. Maybe there would be a sponsor.

 

Just putting it out there.

 

 

[K-man]

Just saw the report of the crash at Tyagarah. That strip reminds me of the strip at Agnes Water and I'm sure there are many more like it where the strip is protected from the wind by trees but you can have a strong crosswind above.

 

I experienced nothing like that in my training but fortunately there were a few experienced pilots with me when I flew out of Agnes. They advised to stay in ground effect below tree height as long as possible to build up speed before climbing and to be ready for the wind gust. That's the sort of training that might seem just like good sense but isn't actually taught. We practise cross wind landings but how much practise is there for cross wind take-offs?

 

 

[kasper]

Apart from the April fools day signing date I am confused:

 

1. The policy is drafted in the form of a standard Corporate policy on safety - something that you expect to find in OHS manuals in any corporate employer. Fair enough, RAA as an employer needs to have one of these

 

2. The policy states it applies to all members within the RAA - sorry but I am a member within RAA and I am definitely not subject to this safety policy or oversight by RAA in my day-to-day life - maybe they MEANT it applied to all employees and personnel working for the RAA on RAA premises and external events ... that would be normal for a policy of this type ...

 

3. It all looks fairly standard as a workplace OHS safety policy until you hit 4.4 where the Commitments appear to be really about RAA Members flying activities ... so maybe they meant it to apply to RAA members in the application section after all :-(

 

So, Hello RAA management, its Kirk here, long time member, not much of a current fan I'm afraid, just letting you know that a policy that is NOT part of the:

 

• Operations manual or
   
   
  
• Technical Manual or
   
   
  
• The Articles of the Corporation
   
   
  

 

 

I am a member of can not and does not bind me even when I considering flying an RAA registered aircraft on my RAA issued Pilots Certificate let alone at any time in my life when I am not considering doing that.

 

If you want me to be under any obligation or take heed of what you say about safety them please put it in one of the three documents listed that I AM required to comply with when I am considering flying an RAA registered aircraft.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes it does apply to you Kasper, so you have a lot of study to do to get yourself up to speed.

 

 

[kasper]

Yes it does apply to you Kasper, so you have a lot of study to do to get yourself up to speed.

Now where did i put that two fingered emoticon ....

Seriously, it only applies to me as a member to the extent that it feeds into changes to the three documents I list - they are the three documents I am governed by as required by membership of RAA and by application of the CAOs - internal safety policies are not directly applicable to either me or my operation of an RAA registered aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Right now isn't a good time for a trike driver to be giving a two fingered salute to anyone.

 

 

[kasper]

Right now isn't a good time for a trike driver to be giving a two fingered salute to anyone.

I gather that this is a shot about the accident/death this morning in NSW?

Hmmm, I'll take my RAA certification with weighshift, three axis and combined control groups that I have held for the past 20 years add the instructor and senior instructor ratings and the L2 PLUS the GA licence and aerobatics training AND pretty well say I am at best an AVERAGE pilot and make as many mistakes flying any of the various aircraft I have flown over the past 3000+ hours of flight ... and will till the day I die (of old age preferably) remain a self proclaimed average pilot.

 

In my opinion pilot safety and risk is not something that is different depending on the aircraft grouping, the day of the week or the fact that there is a safety policy on a website that is not part of the overall statutory control system or even membership of the RAA under which I operate.

 

Its something that comes from the overall way the individual pilot approaches the flight that they are about to undertake be it a 'simple' session of circuits or an epic for the individual flight around Australia or beyond.

 

But IF the RAA think that their safety policy - not being part of the documentation set that I am governed by - is by mere inclusion of RAA members in the document itself binding or particularly interesting to be I will give them two fingers and if you prefer I will use one of my other group of aircraft certifications if that make you happier.

 

Particularly as the rest of the graphics and bumpf under the RAA Safety tab are basic generic safety system building blocks - sort of like the stuff I was responsible for taking and operationally applying to the insurance industry in the UK to manage risk in the operations we were actually facing ... or the risk toolset and register I manage here daily as part of my day job.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can understand that if you are thinking back to the UK industry, the little Australian hooks which can catch us might not be all that clear.

 

Here, if there is a safety standard, or safety management system in place, or Australian Standard, or CASA regulation, regardless of any other documentation you may be working to, it's worth complying with.

 

 

[kasper]

I can understand that if you are thinking back to the UK industry, the little Australian hooks which can catch us might not be all that clear.Here, if there is a safety standard, or safety management system in place, or Australian Standard, or CASA regulation, regardless of any other documentation you may be working to, it's worth complying with.

Absolutely disagree - its nothing to do with country of operation.

In my opinion it is a very insidious process that effectively says - Step 1 there is a document over there ... must comply, return to Step 1 and find another one.

 

Exactly the same as the comments around CIV in training being a must have for an instructor - I gather cover your arse ...very sorry but my Instructor rating included training in principals and methods of instruction ... and I was one of the early group before RAA had actual on the ground capable trainers in this area so I actually did the GA Instructors course training on this area at a GA school with all the other GA instructors to get it as part of my RAA Instructor rating ...

 

If you think that me paying $275 for an online course to get a CIV makes me any better and safer as an instructor then turn that focus around onto ALL GA instructors because in this area I and they share the same training, not the same syllabus but the actual same training.

 

And equally it is a slippery slope to ACCEPT that if there is some separate or higher level document that purports to say I am competent that is required because all you are effectively saying is that the actual legal requirements are a 'lower level' and by implication defective ... so again we start raising everything up to the highest possible documented level without actually considering the safety or operational requirement that we are addressing.

 

Equally, its time that recreational aviation turns to:

 

1. the Coroners and where they come up with recommendations that are not in line with either the regulatory scheme or operations; or

 

2.CASA and when they are attempting to change the operational limits of RAA aircraft and pilots to increase obligations or remove current freedoms where there is not a demonstrable safety case to be made supported by facts

 

Says no thank you, or euphemistically sticks two, very polite, fingers up to them.

 

And I'll paint the target on my own chest for this one and admit that my current role is IN an Australian Vocational Education provider that actually provides CIV in training to TAE40110.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well the countries of operation have different liability laws, so it is different.

 

I agree with you about the document, but I've lost an insurance payout in the past because I didn't have one; you might be luckier, but academic qualifications seem to be crucial in the cases I've experienced.

 

As a hypothetical defendant against a negligence claim (remembering that negligence can be simply making a complaint), was there anything in the training you mentioned which could be produced as documentary evidence that you were qualified to assess that the knowledge you imparted was understood and retained by the student?

 

 

[kasper]

Well the countries of operation have different liability laws, so it is different.I agree with you about the document, but I've lost an insurance payout in the past because I didn't have one; you might be luckier, but academic qualifications seem to be crucial in the cases I've experienced.

 

As a hypothetical defendant against a negligence claim (remembering that negligence can be simply making a complaint), was there anything in the training you mentioned which could be produced as documentary evidence that you were qualified to assess that the knowledge you imparted was understood and retained by the student?

I would not be concerned even in Australia with a negligence claim against me as an instructor on the basis that I do not have a CIV - were I currently instructing I am trained as an instructor, my currency is maintained, I have documented training records for each of the elements of the syllabus and I do write up notes after each training session, and the actual issuance of the pilots certificate is from my CFI I'm feeling perfectly comfortable.

The RAA instructor rating and the process as it should in my opinion be run and documented is a reasonably robust system with independent cross validation. Its when the process as designed is corrupted or shortcutted you start to have risk. Address the dodgy ones and leave the process as designed alone.

 

EG coroner on the spitfire fatal crash - nothing wrong with the design of the process - but failing in operation through factual lies of a manufacturer (determined by coroner not me) and failing of the supervision and oversight function - no need to change the underlying process but address the review/supervision that failed to detect the deliberate falsification

 

EG coroner on the trike fatal up in nth qld - equally the process as designed was appropriate but the oversight and detection of deliberate falsification - again the coroners determination not mine.

 

Equally your rather flippant comment on trike fliers in this thread really pisses me off - safety has got nothing to do with the aircraft type and to tar all of one group on the basis that there was a fatal is in my opinion pathetic.

 

 

[octave]

I am not sure why we are talking about liability and law suites etc.

 

these are things that may occur AFTER and accident occurs. Perhaps a thread about "Flying safety" should be about what pilots do to avoid being involved in an accident, avoid the accident and law suites etc are irrelevant.

 

I am much more interested in what other pilots do to safeguard their own safety. I have a flying regime which I might share later when I have the time and I would love other people to post information about what THEY do to ensure THEIR own safety.

 

Being well informed about the legal aspects regarding liability may be of some importance but I am not sure whether it is the most important aspect involved in ensuring safety for those of us who are regularly practicing aviation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ref the OP's document Octave.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I would not be concerned even in Australia with a negligence claim against me as an instructor on the basis that I do not have a CIV - were I currently instructing I am trained as an instructor, my currency is maintained, I have documented training records for each of the elements of the syllabus and I do write up notes after each training session, and the actual issuance of the pilots certificate is from my CFI I'm feeling perfectly comfortable.The RAA instructor rating and the process as it should in my opinion be run and documented is a reasonably robust system with independent cross validation. Its when the process as designed is corrupted or shortcutted you start to have risk. Address the dodgy ones and leave the process as designed alone.

 

EG coroner on the spitfire fatal crash - nothing wrong with the design of the process - but failing in operation through factual lies of a manufacturer (determined by coroner not me) and failing of the supervision and oversight function - no need to change the underlying process but address the review/supervision that failed to detect the deliberate falsification

 

EG coroner on the trike fatal up in nth qld - equally the process as designed was appropriate but the oversight and detection of deliberate falsification - again the coroners determination not mine.

 

Equally your rather flippant comment on trike fliers in this thread really pisses me off - safety has got nothing to do with the aircraft type and to tar all of one group on the basis that there was a fatal is in my opinion pathetic.

Well after all that, the answer to my question was No.

 

You may have good ideas on how things should be run, you may be right about the Coroners, but you're still missing the principle.

 

My comment was about you appearing to give two fingers to the very people now focusing on the high death rate, and "as a Trike pilot" referred to the prominent number of trike pilots among the 29 dead being discussed on another thread, and I'm not implying trikes themselves are the issue.

 

 

[Aldo]

We practise cross wind landings but how much practise is there for cross wind take-offs?

Very probably the same as the amount of landings! If you're going to practice xwind landings I would assume there would be a xwind on takeoff.

 

That said I think limit xwind take offs are more difficult than limit xwind landings

 

 

[Aldo]

I am much more interested in what other pilots do to safeguard their own safety. I have a flying regime which I might share later when I have the time and I would love other people to post information about what THEY do to ensure THEIR own safety.

Training, currency (hours per week), good maintenance and adherence to the rules. Pretty simple really and will go a long way to ensuring your safety, not a total guarantee but a very good start.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Are we missing the forest for the tree here or what?

 

If the RAA wishes to improve safety and I assume they do, then putting something on the website and expecting it to be read, understood and assimilated into our daily flight practice- just does not cut it.

 

Did all pilots who are licensed receive this in writing?

 

Did all members receive this in writing?

 

Without going looking for the actual document on a website- how were pilots meant to know it even existed before actually knowing it must be considered in flying operations?

 

It is all fine to write documents but they actually have to have meaning in the real world and be assimilated to the target audience.

 

Otherwise they are actually worse than doing nothing. Unless of course it is a exercise in box ticking to cover someones butt, that bears no relation to its intended purpose.

 

The bibles we need like the ops manual are what should be referenced not some verbose unintelligible motherhood statements that could be in any OH&S (WH&S) manual.

 

This should be about pilot safety not safety for lawyers.

 

IF the organisation wishes to only have a safety presence online, they can only expect to change safety in a virtual world. We live in the real world, real people, real aircraft, real physics and real pain/death.

 

I await a stream of electrons improving my safety .

 

 

[K-man]

Very probably the same as the amount of landings! If you're going to practice xwind landings I would assume there would be a xwind on takeoff.That said I think limit xwind take offs are more difficult than limit xwind landings

Well no. You can land one day with no wind and take off the next in totally different weather. We had a trip to Barwon Heads a few years back where the wind was straight up the strip when we landed. After lunch it was gusting across the strip. We don't get many cross winds here anyway and when we do we are often protected by trees close to the ground. So where you have a relatively benign takeoff you can come in with a cross wind. As I said, I didn't have any cross wind take offs in training. The first major cross wind takeoff I had saw me taking off over the side fence. That taught me a number of lessons, not the least being how to wash my pants. But seriously, I learned a lot from that first hairy takeoff. I was just very lucky that first time as I had absolutely no rudder authority once I rotated. It would have been a lot better if I had some instruction first in what to expect.

 

 

[K-man]

Are we missing the forest for the tree here or what?If the RAA wishes to improve safety and I assume they do, then putting something on the website and expecting it to be read, understood and assimilated into our daily flight practice- just does not cut it.

 

Did all pilots who are licensed receive this in writing?

 

Did all members receive this in writing?

 

Without going looking for the actual document on a website- how were pilots meant to know it even existed before actually knowing it must be considered in flying operations?

 

It is all fine to write documents but they actually have to have meaning in the real world and be assimilated to the target audience.

 

Otherwise they are actually worse than doing nothing. Unless of course it is a exercise in box ticking to cover someones butt, that bears no relation to its intended purpose.

 

The bibles we need like the ops manual are what should be referenced not some verbose unintelligible motherhood statements that could be in any OH&S (WH&S) manual.

 

This should be about pilot safety not safety for lawyers.

 

IF the organisation wishes to only have a safety presence online, they can only expect to change safety in a virtual world. We live in the real world, real people, real aircraft, real physics and real pain/death.

 

I await a stream of electrons improving my safety .

In fairness, the document does read that it is more for the organisation than the individual members. It is saying that RAA will do everything in its power to promote and improve safety. Like others here, I was querying just how effective it could be. What I was pointing out was that, realistically, we alone are responsible for our own safety and the safety of others around us. RAA cannot be responsible for our safety.

 

 

[Aldo]

Well no. You can land one day with no wind and take off the next in totally different weather. We had a trip to Barwon Heads a few years back where the wind was straight up the strip when we landed. After lunch it was gusting across the strip.We don't get many cross winds here anyway and when we do we are often protected by trees close to the ground. So where you have a relatively benign takeoff you can come in with a cross wind. As I said, I didn't have any cross wind take offs in training. The first major cross wind takeoff I had saw me taking off over the side fence. That taught me a number of lessons, not the least being how to wash my pants. But seriously, I learned a lot from that first hairy takeoff. I was just very lucky that first time as I had absolutely no rudder authority once I rotated. It would have been a lot better if I had some instruction first in what to expect.

Pretty scary post really, rudder authority occurs well before you leave the ground in a normal take off.