RAA accident / defect reports

[fly_tornado]

I don't think anyone in the RAA has the skill set to do any in depth statistical analysis, got to remember it was only a few years ago that they thought they had 13500 members and there hasn't been any big hires or expenditure on scientific research.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I'll happily do the analysis, it's not rocket science to do a high level review. As someone else has indicated attributing the cause to "Human Factors" is not detailed enough - was it decision making, comms or maybe a deficient skill? The new instructor manual does not link the stall recovery to bounce or mislanding recovery. I'm sure these incidents are frequent, yet we don't train them properly - it's all about lowering the nose then applying power! Hardly think that's appropriate at 20' AGL!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

that will only create a need for ongoing statistical analysis, which would lead to the hiring of that skill set. I don't think the RAA would be that interested

 

 

[kasper]

that will only create a need for ongoing statistical analysis, which would lead to the hiring of that skill set. I don't think the RAA would be that interested

But if they really are not interested then what's the actual purpose of capturing the data or having a safety officer ? Please ignore box ticking as the answer because that's a very poor reason for the association to spend its money on.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I'm assuming they collect the data, because CASA tells them too. A lot of these incidents are pretty trivial, I can't see how they can lead to a better understanding of aviation safety.

 

The only bonus I can see of recording a lot of trivial issues is it make incidents like "for example" Jabiru engine failures seem less significant. But that's just me looking at things from a political perspective.

 

 

[turboplanner]

But if they really are not interested then what's the actual purpose of capturing the data or having a safety officer ? Please ignore box ticking as the answer because that's a very poor reason for the association to spend its money on.

It has an SMS needs to minimise injuries and fatalities. If the reports are up to the standard of Pilot Notes, you can get quite a lot of information which will make you safer, e.g. Engine choice, excessive runway excursions etc. However a lot depends on you; RAA can only report what you tell them. If one claim here is correct - that only 50% of incidents are reported, that's cuts the usefull database down by 50%. If you lie in your report that could contribute to someone else being killed or spending their salary fixing a problem they should have been warned about.

 

 

[kasper]

And that's the point. Because casa require it without being able to point to the value added means to my mind you have to question the point of doing it.

 

Many people overlook the fact that data costs real money to collect and even more to analyse then even more to turn into practical education to address.

 

My problem with way RAAus is currently set up and running is we have all the cost of capturing data without knowing the use for the data - so we do not know that the level of capture is correct.

 

We then apparently do no analysis - based on what has been stated to be the driving force of the safety officer

 

BUT we have all the cost of the safety officer who does not appear to have fact/evidence based analysis behind whatever programs they are putting together

 

If the only reason we capture the data is casa then in my opinion that goes straight on the list of unpaid services that need to be added to the deed of agreement to be fully cost recovered.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And that's the point. Because casa require it without being able to point to the value added means......

Who said CASA require it? I would be checking before I relied on a lazy assumption of FT.

 

 

[M61A1]

But if they really are not interested then what's the actual purpose of capturing the data or having a safety officer ? Please ignore box ticking as the answer because that's a very poor reason for the association to spend its money on.

The fact that box ticking is a poor excuse doesn't meant that's not what it is. There are thousands of companies out there with Safety Management Systems and accident/incident reporting that are doing it solely because they have to tick that box, just being seen to have done something. It's just another means of corporate arxe covering, which wouldn't be necessary if we didn't a counterproductive legal system awarding dills massive payouts for not thinking.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The fact that box ticking is a poor excuse doesn't meant that's not what it is. There are thousands of companies out there with Safety Management Systems and accident/incident reporting that are doing it solely because they have to tick that box, just being seen to have done something. It's just another means of corporate arxe covering, which wouldn't be necessary if we didn't a counterproductive legal system awarding dills massive payouts for not thinking.

Care to enlighten us on where or which industries these companies might be found?

There are State and Territory bodies inspecting, enforcing and investigating to make sure none exist.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Who said CASA require it? I would be checking before I relied on a lazy assumption of FT.

Are you saying the membership are driving it? Now that's a bold assumption

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I work in the minerals and tourism industries. Both have shown substantial reductions in accident rates by monitoring incidents and near misses. It is very effective and is not a.e covering or box ticking if done properly. It does require analysis and follow up. I suggest that both those industries would struggle for community acceptance if they hadn't taken this on over the last couple of decades.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Who said CASA require it? I would be checking before I relied on a lazy assumption of FT.

 

I work in the minerals and tourism industries. Both have shown substantial reductions in accident rates by monitoring incidents and near misses. It is very effective and is not a.e covering or box ticking if done properly. It does require analysis and follow up. I suggest that both those industries would struggle for community acceptance if they hadn't taken this on over the last couple of decades.

CASR Part 103 will require the organisation to have an effective SMS, which would include analysis of data and an appropriate response to the findings. I too work with an organisation with an effective SMS and see the benefit of it. Improving safety is all about education and not regulation. It seems to me we are heading well down the path of regulation, not education. We have had a Training Officer employed since Feb 2016 (16 months on my count to June 2017 - unlike the presentation by the management last week stating 8 months).

 

I haven't seen much training material published as yet, so far two items relating to maintenance and none to flying.

 

 

[facthunter]

To do the analysis properly you would need quite a lot of flying experience probably with an emphasis on training and accident investigation plus the skill to evaluate the risk factors evident in the event. In some events there won't be enough information to associate the outcome with a definite cause particularly if the pilot is deceased. "Our" planes don't have the usual recorders but they do often have a GPS operating which should be encouraged. On board camera's would help too. Witnesses testimony varies depending on skill and knowledge as to whether it's much value. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Are you saying the membership are driving it? Now that's a bold assumption

No, I'm just responding to what you said.

 

 

[turboplanner]

To do the analysis properly you would need quite a lot of flying experience probably with an emphasis on training and accident investigation plus the skill to evaluate the risk factors evident in the event. In some events there won't be enough information to associate the outcome with a definite cause particularly if the pilot is deceased. "Our" planes don't have the usual recorders but they do often have a GPS operating which should be encouraged. On board camera's would help too. Witnesses testimony varies depending on skill and knowledge as to whether it's much value. Nev

Barring a major change in the laws of every State and Territory, RAA don't have to make a major change in investigating fatalities, and accidents or a series of accidents where a State Coroner decides to step in.

This leaves incidents which may or may not produce no injury or damage, and accidents.

 

There would be quite a few RAA members out there who fit the description you're recommending, and the recording equipment you're suggesting would fit into a $20,000 to $150,000 budget for aircraft ownership.

 

With a will by RAA, there's no reason they couldn't get to where you're suggesting.

 

With the current company structure there's less chance of setting up a voluntary Compliance and Enforcement group to cover all districts, as other sporting organisations do, but this may come after a particularly bad set of fatalities.

 

 

[coljones]

It has an SMS needs to minimise injuries and fatalities. If the reports are up to the standard of Pilot Notes, you can get quite a lot of information which will make you safer, e.g. Engine choice, excessive runway excursions etc. However a lot depends on you; RAA can only report what you tell them. If one claim here is correct - that only 50% of incidents are reported, that's cuts the usefull database down by 50%. If you lie in your report that could contribute to someone else being killed or spending their salary fixing a problem they should have been warned about.

Not quite true. If the half not reported were the Rotax failures then the would be a problem but if the under-reported was across the band then the analysts could do some extrapolation. The fact that something happened is as equal importance as the rate of occurance for some events.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not quite true. If the half not reported were the Rotax failures then the would be a problem but if the under-reported was across the band then the analysts could do some extrapolation. The fact that something happened is as equal importance as the rate of occurance for some events.

Correct, but I don't believe 50% are no reporting.

 

 

[coljones]

Higher or lower under-reported?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Correct, but I don't believe 50% are no reporting.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

 

[turboplanner]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Crystal ball

 

 

[Icarus]

SECTION 4.08

 

REPORTING IMMEDIATE AND ROUTINE REPORTABLE MATTERS

 

GENERAL

 

Recreational aeroplanes and associated ground or flight operations are required to comply with the reporting requirements of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI) and the Transport Safety Investigation (TSI) Regulations 2003.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

The definitions of Immediate Reportable Matters and Routine Reportable Matters are defined in RAAP 2 -2016 Reporting Requirements.

 

For RAAus purposes an Immediate Reportable Matter (IRM) was previously defined as an Accident, and a Routine Reportable Matter (RRM) was previously defined as an Incident.

 

NOTIFICATIONS

 

Notification of an IRM must be made as soon as practicable, and in writing within 72 hours, whereas an RRM must be notified in writing within 72 hours of the occurrence.

 

RAAus members will fulfil their written obligations under the TSI Act by submitting an online report via the RAAus website using the online Occurrence Management System (OMS).

 

A report submitted via the OMS on the RAAus website will automatically be forwarded to the ATSB and fulfil the obligation for written notification of the IRM or RRM.

 

As responsible persons, the pilot in command, the owner, the operator and the hirer (as applicable) must each ensure that their IRM and RRM reporting requirements are fulfilled within 72 hours of the occurrence.

 

Note: A responsible person need not submit a report if they have reasonable grounds to believe another responsible person has already reported the occurrence.

 

Further detail about IRM and RRM follow up and investigation processes, along with analysis and information sharing is provided in RAAP 2 – 2016 Reporting Requirements

 

 

[M61A1]

Care to enlighten us on where or which industries these companies might be found?There are State and Territory bodies inspecting, enforcing and investigating to make sure none exist.

Pick almost any non-governmental company. The fact that the box is ticked means they comply, what is there to find?The regulators and their safety reps all like to believe that the world would collapse without them, reality is that most people are smart enough to work safely anyway and you can't help those that aren't no matter how hard you try.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Pick almost any non-governmental company. The fact that the box is ticked means they comply, what is there to find?The regulators and their safety reps all like to believe that the world would collapse without them, reality is that most people are smart enough to work safely anyway and you can't help those that aren't no matter how hard you try.

Wrong; OH&S goes massively beyond box ticking, and has evolved into a safety culture, which is many cases is resulting in increased productivity at the same time as reduced injuries.

That'a what's happening right around Australia.

 

 

[M61A1]

Wrong; OH&S goes massively beyond box ticking, and has evolved into a safety culture, which is many cases is resulting in increased productivity at the same time as reduced injuries.That'a what's happening right around Australia.

Sure....you keep telling yourself that.