SAAA & RAAus Partnership To Improve Safety!

[jetjr]

The question was asked, Data passed on to those who can penalise ie casa is de indentified

 

They could let casa know about repeated breaches or I think ATSB and coroner can demand info

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The question was asked, Data passed on to those who can penalise ie casa is de indentifiedThey could let casa know about repeated breaches or I think ATSB and coroner can demand info

If the SMS is operating correctly CASA have no need to access data, they periodically audit the SMS. ATSB only get de-identified data, the Coroner has the means to access all data relevant to an incident.

Serious breaches would be referred to police for prosecution, CASA would only need be involved if the pilot was operating outside of RAAus. (eg aircraft not registered or pilot not qualified / no membership)

 

 

[kasper]

... clipped ...Serious breaches would be referred to police for prosecution, CASA would only need be involved if the pilot was operating outside of RAAus. (eg aircraft not registered or pilot not qualified / no membership)

Not quite on that:

- RAAus can only discipline for breach of RAAus member obligations and the discipline powers are very limited with the ultimate being removal of membership

 

- CASA are the only entity with the power to refer to police or prosecute as they are the legislative body with that power under the Act

 

Factually RAAus cannot do much in relation to prosecution of a breach of the Act or the CAOs.

 

They can and do capture the data on the breach and provide it in anonymity form to ATSB as part of that reporting and potentially they may have under the deed of agreement a requirement to report upwards to CASA suspected breaches of CAOs or the Act by members.

 

 

[Yenn]

All the talk of safety training and incident reporting leaves me wondering what is happening.

 

This is supposedly a safety month. I have seen nothing that enhances safety training except words that mean nothing from RAAus. Something about deviation that seems incoherent. The idea of running safety training at FTFs does nothing for me. There is not a FTF within 100km from my home base and the nearest is GA only.

 

The reporting of incidents, which I see as a good start to advising others what to avoid is not working. I know of incidents which have not been reported. No doubt they should have been and non reporting is a breach of the rules. Plus we are denied the chance to learn from others mistakes.

 

 

[DrZoos]

All the talk of safety training and incident reporting leaves me wondering what is happening.This is supposedly a safety month. I have seen nothing that enhances safety training except words that mean nothing from RAAus. Something about deviation that seems incoherent. The idea of running safety training at FTFs does nothing for me. There is not a FTF within 100km from my home base and the nearest is GA only.

The reporting of incidents, which I see as a good start to advising others what to avoid is not working. I know of incidents which have not been reported. No doubt they should have been and non reporting is a breach of the rules. Plus we are denied the chance to learn from others mistakes.

That's concerning to say the least

 

 

[storchy neil]

kasper love yah mate raas stuffed up big time for NOT reporting my incident C A S A that piece off paper with the word deed of has more meaning than some have thought

 

neil

 

 

[poteroo]

The reporting of incidents, which I see as a good start to advising others what to avoid is not working. I know of incidents which have not been reported. No doubt they should have been and non reporting is a breach of the rules. Plus we are denied the chance to learn from others mistakes.

I can only agree with this: in my 53 years in aviation there has always been under-reporting of incidents and non-fatal accidents. It's no different to road accidents where there are high numbers of unreported accidents. It's probable that if all incidents & accidents with road vehicles were 'reported', collated, interpreted and published - there would be a better targeted road safety program. The emphasis on speed and alcohol in isolation just doesn't cut it. In aviation, it's not that anyone has devised a new way to have an accident in 100 years. The common causes are well known. HF is included in the syllabus.

 

CFIs impart 'safety' to students, and to hiring pilots: but you can only 'lead-the-horse-to water'. No CFI is able to identify the pilot likely to have a brain snap. We can, however, probably detect the impetuous, the over-confidants, the anti-authoritarians, and the less cautious: but there is nowhere in the aviation reporting structure, (in student files, review reports or in direct-to-Operations forms), where we can commit these observations to paper. Indeed, if we were to do this, (due FOI), we'd be pilloried from pillar-to-post by the aggrieved or offended pilot - probably have civil action taken against us - and all for what? Most of the extra 'safety' programs being thrown at us will 'fail', (accidents will continue), because human nature has not really changed.

 

I can clearly remember an incident in PNG during 1961, where a twin engine freighter disappeared in the Kokoda Gap area - and has never been found. The accident reports mentioned terms such as 'over-confident, impetuous, and low experience' - but if senior and supervising pilots and staff thought this - why didn't they do anything? The answer is - there isn't any quantitative criteria to identify these human traits, and the majority of senior pilots/instructors would not claim to hold any real skills in this field. I don't think that much has changed. There have been plenty of fatal accidents in this vicinity since then.

 

happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can only agree with this: in my 53 years in aviation there has always been under-reporting of incidents and non-fatal accidents. It's no different to road accidents where there are high numbers of unreported accidents. It's probable that if all incidents & accidents with road vehicles were 'reported', collated, interpreted and published - there would be a better targeted road safety program. The emphasis on speed and alcohol in isolation just doesn't cut it. In aviation, it's not that anyone has devised a new way to have an accident in 100 years. The common causes are well known. HF is included in the syllabus.CFIs impart 'safety' to students, and to hiring pilots: but you can only 'lead-the-horse-to water'. No CFI is able to identify the pilot likely to have a brain snap. We can, however, probably detect the impetuous, the over-confidants, the anti-authoritarians, and the less cautious: but there is nowhere in the aviation reporting structure, (in student files, review reports or in direct-to-Operations forms), where we can commit these observations to paper. Indeed, if we were to do this, (due FOI), we'd be pilloried from pillar-to-post by the aggrieved or offended pilot - probably have civil action taken against us - and all for what? Most of the extra 'safety' programs being thrown at us will 'fail', (accidents will continue), because human nature has not really changed.

 

I can clearly remember an incident in PNG during 1961, where a twin engine freighter disappeared in the Kokoda Gap area - and has never been found. The accident reports mentioned terms such as 'over-confident, impetuous, and low experience' - but if senior and supervising pilots and staff thought this - why didn't they do anything? The answer is - there isn't any quantitative criteria to identify these human traits, and the majority of senior pilots/instructors would not claim to hold any real skills in this field. I don't think that much has changed. There have been plenty of fatal accidents in this vicinity since then.

 

happy days,

If you are dealing with A type personalities, who tend to love the riskier pursuits and are usually very competitive, as in "hold my beer, watch this" you either have to be everywhere at once, or you have to put up with them doing their thing regardless of rules, and save their necks by other means. And there are plenty of ways to do that.

Staying away from flying, in one multiple road fatality a group of us looked at a group of youths may have been drinking and may have been skylarking, but in any case the driver screwed up and slid off the road, hit a safety barrier, rolled, and they were crushed against trees.

 

Looking forward, we could have recommended more behavioural control of the driver.

 

We could have reommended a better car suspension design.

 

We could have reommended removal of trees.

 

But what we found was that the safety fence design did not have an anti-ramp device fitted; the car slid up the end diagonal which imparted a rotational force, which flipped the car into the trees.

 

By ensuring anti-ramp devices were fitted, we could prevent that exact same multi-fataility from happening again, regardless of the behaviour of the driver, end of story.

 

That's an extreme example, but it illustrates there are some measures you can take which remove the risk.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not quite on that:- RAAus can only discipline for breach of RAAus member obligations and the discipline powers are very limited with the ultimate being removal of membership

- CASA are the only entity with the power to refer to police or prosecute as they are the legislative body with that power under the Act

RAA have an empty constitution, in particular with no compliance and enforcement policy.

Motor Racing would be a graveyard, if their administering bodies took the same attitude and left it to the government to manage their sport.

 

You don't have to hand someone or have him/her thrown in prison; a six months suspension is a BIG punishment among peers; life suspension removes the person from the sport.

 

It's just a matter of DOING something.