pprune report: jab engine failure Oct 28th

[motzartmerv]

Casa have a major legislative overhaul in place already, and have had for some time.

 

There's even a table somewhere which has the particular Reg changes etc on a timeline projecting forward over the next few years.

 

IMHO the issues we face today are not based on legislation, but rather a cultural "illness" within the dept that starts at the front desk and works its way all the way to the top.

 

The regulator is feared, despised, and not trusted by the majority of industry, and this particular topic ( the over reaction towards jab) is a perfect example of the problem.

 

How we fix it is far from simple. To be honest I don't know how we can.

 

 

[poteroo]

The regulator is feared, despised, and not trusted by the majority of industry,

It has long been so. And it will not change until the strict liability provisions are removed from the CASRs; allowing industry to be treated equitably under the law of the land, just as other Australians are.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The updating or regulations does nothing to address the fundamental reasons that CASA is there for.

 

The UK recently got rid of class 2 medicals because they have a CAA with vision and pragmatism.

 

CASA should take note of the UK CAA's top level principles which is the major reason this change is taking place. These are:-

 

• Only regulate directly when necessary and do so proportionately
   
   
  
• Deregulate where we can
   
   
  
• Delegate where appropriate
   
   
  
• Do not gold-plate, and quickly and efficiently remove gold-plating that already exists
   
   
  
• Help create a vibrant and dynamic GA sector in the UK.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Good points KG. One of the big problems I see, is the regulation and legislation is not directly proportional to the risk's or to actual safety incidence.

 

let me point out 2 recent safety cases.

 

1. Robinson helicopters fuel tank issues. Involved multiple deaths around Australia and the world. The issues were known by CASA and the manufacturer. A soft " do as you see fit" modification was

 

'encouraged' but not made mandatory, until the horrible fiery deaths racked up to an unacceptable level. Once pushed hard, CASA finally made the changes mandatory.

 

2. Jabiru engine failures. Reliability of the engines was questionable for a variety of reasons, and without consult with industry, a heavy handed, over the top approach from CASA followed. With extreme reluctance

 

to furnish the industry with any detail. yes, of course there were issues, but at the time no deaths were directly attributable to the design' Flaws".

 

So on one hand we had multiple people, burned alive due to a KNOWN and DOCUMENTED problem with design. The regulator did nothing meaningful until the chared bodies piled up.

 

On the other hand, we had no fatality's, very few injuries, all be it a design issues that was known to cause engine problems.

 

The mind boggles when one tries to imagine both cases being handled by the same regulator.

 

The legislation needs to be proportionate to the ACTUAL safety case it attempts to control.

 

 

[Yenn]

Motza. You missed the long ongoing fault with Cessna seats. Yesterday at a safety seminar the skydiving incident where a load of skydivers crashed on take off due it was supposed to the pilots seat running off tha rear of the seat rails.

 

This problem has been known for over 20 years and it is still happening. I know about it and I don't fly Cessnas and I am sure that all cessna pilots know of it, but it still happens. Surely there must be an easy fif to prevent it happening.

 

 

[poteroo]

s problem has been known for over 20 years and it is still happening. I know about it and I don't fly Cessnas and I am sure that all cessna pilots know of it, but it still happens. Surely there must be an easy fif to prevent it happening

50 years actually. The operational solution is in the pilots hands - make sure there are (approved), 'locking' stop pins at front and aft ends of the rails - or don't fly the aircraft. As well, your LAME should be over the AD/SB for seat rail hole wear, and the replacement requirements.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

My 182 has a seat belt 'snatch" fitted underneath it, IAW some mod required years ago. Its cant roll back very fast at all or the belt (inertia reel type deal) grabs it.

 

I would have thought they all had this mod?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ps. Mind you, after that accident and the fallout that followed, I always find myself taking off with my right hand grasped firmly around the collar on the throttle- a fixed point on the dash so i can support my weight ( ever increasing ) should the seat roll back.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

I think the idea of a peak body has a lot going for it, if it achieves the aims you suggest. I am concerned, however, that such a body could be too easily dominated by the narrow interests of the most wealthy players (eg. Qantas, Virgin, etc,) and the other less wealthy interests get "left behind" in negotiations with the regulators, authorities, ministers, etc...If the wealthy can simply buy influence (and perhaps that is already the case), then the broader interests go unattended.

 

There would need to be some levelling of the playing field, in the composition & direction of the proposed peak body. I'm not too sure how that might be accomplished. Suggestions, anyone?

Thanks and I agree with the above sentiment, the peak body would be the General and Recreational Aviation body. The airlines have their own channels. To make this work it would need to include some board members from the existing associations as potential board and committee members otherwise it would fall into a diluted assortment of splinter groups and narrow interests.

 

I'm not suggesting this is easy. Also Australian manufacturers need a seat at this table along with importer/wholesalers. The way to make this diverse group work is to have designated sub committees and these committees can have out side invited members but with no voting rights. The President would act as a Chair and have no voting rights.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

I'm wondering if we should start a new thread related to the Peak Body. As it's not related to the Jab engines or any Jabiru related story

 

 

[turboplanner]

GA and the Airlines have the same channels - their peak body is CASA, this has been in place for a few decades now.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Thanks but where is a situation in Industry where a government regulator and a peak body are the same group of people?

 

The whole point of a Peak Body is to represent the interests of their members industry or industry segment to Governments and the associated bureaucracy. Here is a list of a few examples. There are a lot more such bodies than appear on this list linked here. Industry Association Members - Australian Chamber

 

CASA is not a Peak Body, it is the Government mandated regulatory body with the responsibility for the maintenance, enhancement and promotion of the safety of civil aviation in Australia. I would see this charter as neither in opposition or in alliance with a Peak Body. They have different roles. However a Peak Body will will promote interests that would normally not get a hearing in the normal regulatory event stream. There are plenty examples where industries would walked all over without a representative body.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

There are representative bodies (AOPA, SAAA, RAAus, HAIA ( I'm not sure of the correct acronym but the helicopter group).

 

Trouble is that apart from being carried aloft by a machine the people they represent have very little else in common. This leads to divisions or at least lack of common driving principles. While they are not always in conflict they have historically been driving different agendas and this lack of cohesion is something CASA have been happy to allow to continue.

 

There has been increasing cohesion between them over the private pilot class 2 medical issue ( which is great) but it's taken a century of flight to get toward cohesion on even that).

 

 

[kasper]

There are representative bodies (AOPA, SAAA, RAAus, HAIA ( I'm not sure of the correct acronym but the helicopter group).Trouble is that apart from being carried aloft by a machine the people they represent have very little else in common. This leads to divisions or at least lack of common driving principles. While they are not always in conflict they have historically been driving different agendas and this lack of cohesion is something CASA have been happy to allow to continue.

 

There has been increasing cohesion between them over the private pilot class 2 medical issue ( which is great) but it's taken a century of flight to get toward cohesion on even that).

Or we could have a crack at looking at the Air Sport Australia Confederation - an umbrella for Hang Gliders and some trikes (HGFA), Balloons (ABF), Gliders (GFA), Parachutes and sky diving (PFA), Aerobatics (AAC), Aeromodellers (MAAC) ... if you could rope in SAAA for GA homebuilt and RAAus for ultralights you have pretty much got the grab bag.

And this is a better base IMO than AOPA which focuses on the air frames - this focuses on the people in the various areas - and it already puts submissions to CASA and the Government on regulatory change ...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ga

 

Thanks but where is a situation in Industry where a government regulator and a peak body are the same group of people?The whole point of a Peak Body is to represent the interests of their members industry or industry segment to Governments and the associated bureaucracy. Here is a list of a few examples. There are a lot more such bodies than appear on this list linked here. Industry Association Members - Australian Chamber

 

CASA is not a Peak Body, it is the Government mandated regulatory body with the responsibility for the maintenance, enhancement and promotion of the safety of civil aviation in Australia. I would see this charter as neither in opposition or in alliance with a Peak Body. They have different roles. However a Peak Body will will promote interests that would normally not get a hearing in the normal regulatory event stream. There are plenty examples where industries would walked all over without a representative body.

I think you might have got those definitions from the internet Frankus. A Peak Body is part of the Delphi technique beloved of governments to minimise the number of feet coming through the door every day with complaints.

 

CASA is a stand alone body; in fact CASA, Airservices Australia, and part of Australian Transport Safety Bureau are the three bodies that represent aviation, but CASA is the key one for aircraft owners and pilots.

 

The CASA Sports Aviation Section operates under self regulation and includes:

 

Amateur Built and Experimental Aircraft

 

Gliding

 

Gyroplanes

 

Hang Gliders and Paragliders

 

Parachuting

 

Recreational Ballooning

 

Ultralight and weightshift microlight aircraft

 

Warbirds

 

Technically there could be a Peak Body sitting above CASA, Airservices Ausltralia and ATSB, buit its representation would come those three bodies.

 

I'm one of thousands of pilots who've had no problem flying within the structure of CASA, and while I could see CASA offloading the bottom end of non-commercial aviation to one of the existing, or new, Sport Aviation bodies, only Mr McGoo would think CASA would relinquish their current role and step aside in favour of a bunch of disaffected people who are not happy with their present station on the tree.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

And this is the point. An assortment of groups all with their own interests (all be it a lot in common) are a disorganised rabble as far as a regulator in concerned. Also as far as getting the big picture issues addressed a Peak Body would have sub section committees to address sectional interests. The focus would be not to harangue the regulator but to reverse the decline in the industry and create a better environment for growth in all sectors. Yes we have some competent groups as expressed above but so far, we still have a decline. Not good enough. Any company CEO presented with such statistics and no action won't have his job for long. There is nothing new in this. It's all been done before. Here's one for you.... AIG About Ai Group- The Australian Industry Group You wouldn't find a more diverse group of interests. The only difference to General Aviation is that we already have an assortment of committed groups. That should make it easier because each one is a network hub.

 

 

[Oscar]

The idea that CASA etc. REPRESENT Aviation, comes from somewhere else than reality.

 

An accurate analogy would be that Parking Inspectors REPRESENT the car owners who get fined.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Coming from a glider jockey.......

 

 

[poteroo]

the maintenance, enhancement and promotion of the safety of civil aviation in Australia.

They do not have any charter to enhance or promote aviation per se - and that's the defining line with CASA. Sure, they have the responsibility for aviation safety, but unlike the FAA, they are not obliged to promote aviation in their charter. And that is really why we have so much difficulty with CASA.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... the responsibility for aviation safety, but unlike the FAA, they are not obliged to promote aviation in their charter .....

please stop spreading the untruth that the US FAA is obliged to promote aviation ...

[Happyflyer]

From FAA webpage Mission Nothing saying they have to promote aviation here.

 

Our Mission

 

Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

 

Our Vision

 

We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

 

Our Values

 

•Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.

 

•Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.

 

•Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.

 

•People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.

 

•Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.

 

 

[poteroo]

Mea culpa. I was wrong about the FAA's mission details. Sorry everyone. I have completely misunderstood CASAs decisions as well, and shall henceforth keep my unfair and uninformed comments out of public forums. happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

We all have our bad days; 9 out of 10 conveys a lot of good information to others.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

From FAA webpage Mission Nothing saying they have to promote aviation here.Our Mission

 

Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

 

Our Vision

 

We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

 

Our Values

 

•Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.

 

•Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.

 

•Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.

 

•People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.

 

•Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.

However on heir website they do give a list of their roles and encouraging civil aviation is one of their published aims.

 

Quote:

 

We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the agency under the name Federal Aviation Agency. We adopted our present name in 1967 when we became a part of the Department of Transportation. Our major roles include:

 

• Regulating civil aviation to promote safety
   
   
  
• Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology
   
   
  
• .... plus more ( deleted).......
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Yenn]

Jaba -who is correct, that is the wording of what i suppose would be the constitution.

 

I get updates from FAA and their safety information. The most recent equivalent to our Safety Digest was all about promoting training, what to look for when starting training and a load of useful info. They do appear to be promoting aviation and don't have the heavy hand of CASA with its "Thou shalt not" mesasage