turboplanner Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 CASA would Luv to ground all GA A/C & deal with the RPT guys, far safer. Remember CASA's Moto......safe skies are M/T skies Have you got any evidence of that Gravity, or is that just what you've picked up from other sites?
M61A1 Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 Have you got any evidence of that Gravity, or is that just what you've picked up from other sites? If it looks like a duck.....you know the rest.
turboplanner Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 If it looks like a duck.....you know the rest. I guess that's one way of looking at it; its what you look like that probably interests them more.
Downunder Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 CASA would Luv to ground all GA A/C & deal with the RPT guys, far safer. Remember CASA's Moto......safe skies are M/T skies Have you got any evidence of that Gravity, or is that just what you've picked up from other sites? After my attendance of casa safety seminars over the last couple of years, I see nothing dissagree with in Gravity's comments. What's funny or ironic, is that the majority of the attendee's are one form or another of recreational pilot actively being pro-active about safety, yet I think there is a strong distain from casa about non-proffesional pilots....
turboplanner Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 After my attendance of casa safety seminars over the last couple of years, I see nothing dissagree with in Gravity's comments.What's funny or ironic, is that the majority of the attendee's are one form or another of recreational pilot actively being pro-active about safety, yet I think there is a strong distain from casa about non-proffesional pilots.... RAA is a self administering body. If you’re flying RA, I’d expect to see you attending RAA safety events, so you probably confused them, particularly if there were several RA pilots asking the sorts of questions asked here. I would expect to see mainly CPLs there. Maybe the mistake was in the wording of the advertising; I’ ve seen the ads but thought they were for Commercial. They have as many issues to solve as RA, so a room full of both is going to be total confusion at best.
Gravity Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 Downunder most RA drivers have not had the exposure I have had with CASA & their predecessors over near 40 yrs from basic VFR SE flying all the way to flying RPT ops in an Airbus. I don't want to start a debate with others in here about that subject as this is not the arena for such matters it's just my opinion that is also shared with many many of my ex Airline colleges. 1 1
johnm Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 That seems to be ^par^ for the course gravity ?................. casa gives the airline pilot the hee bee gee bees Ive seen such a one on this site that gave fantastic insights but then left .... i presume by employee or legislative pressure .......or perhaps close legal counsel Best thing here ....... we want to hear what you got to say. .... if we are passengers in a wide body ...... and we are the only ones that can land it ...... we have to know where the ............. Im assuming you are a retired airlinre pilot ............ anyway welcome
Gravity Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 Thanks John, yeah been there done that (Airline gig) didn't much like it, I now fly private ops in in my own light aircraft, trust me it's nothing like the brochures say CASA are mainly in place to play police to the Airlines, GA is a thorn in their side mostly, RA & the other low end bodies are self governed so they kinda look after themselves. I'd say that if there ever was a situation where a FA said over the PA can anyone onboard fly a plane a dozen hands would go up then there would be a shit fight as to who gets to sit in the Capts seat....lolol If you are asked to land an Airbus then with help from someone on the radio and providing you are going to precision App airport pretty much anyone who is switched on could land a bus, no big deal 1
Mike Borgelt Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 So the hours flown nearly doubled from 2106 to 2017? Sounds like RAAus has discovered the GFA method of reducing the fatality rate per 100,000 hours. Just fake the hours by exaggerating them greatly. "Insanely good" ? I'd say "unbelievably good".
turboplanner Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 So the hours flown nearly doubled from 2106 to 2017? Sounds like RAAus has discovered the GFA method of reducing the fatality rate per 100,000 hours. Just fake the hours by exaggerating them greatly."Insanely good" ? I'd say "unbelievably good". I think they need to correct that as quickly as possible; this is not an idle statistic like how many members there are.
Ayecapt Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 Some funny numbers there... ('000) 243, 226, 211, 207, 379.379 sounds fishy. 179 would fit the trend better and gives 2.23/100000 hours which is still the best in the table but also fits better with the other values. I also get edgy when you start to see stastistics that have been massaged by normalising and other statistical tools. Tools that are there to get data to look good . 600 killed on our roads for how many driving hours would come out to be a very low number indeed. BUT ITS STILL 600. It can still happen to you! Presenting statistics that show we are improving doesnt encourage improved airmanship , in fact it could do the opposite. 1
Bernie Knight Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 Gravity Easy solution.. Rec Aus to have TCAS and FMS then accidents would be lower. Just an additional $100k 1
scre80 Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 Good question to ask at members forum, as to the increase in hours flown
M61A1 Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 GravityEasy solution.. Rec Aus to have TCAS and FMS then accidents would be lower. Just an additional $100k Sounds like good value...that should stop them running into the ground.
Gravity Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 Sounds like good value...that should stop them running into the ground. Every a/c hits the ground eventually, it's just how you go about it that matters:faint:
M61A1 Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 That depends on your definition of "hit" (or running into). I can just hear the "terrain, terrain...pull up, pull up", as they start to crumple at impact with the stick held hard back.
facthunter Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 You can caress it or thump it. There is a difference. Nev
APenNameAndThatA Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 It's never been safer to fly RAA planes 1.05 deaths per 100,000 hours is an insanely good result last year, GA needs to lift its game as the RAA is clearly found the secret to flight safety [ATTACH=full]53551[/ATTACH] Those statistics are not good. I heard some board member of RAA say on a podcast that the rate of fatal accidents was 1 in 100 000 flying hours. That was about as close to a lie as you can get. The rate of fatals is almost certainly at least 3 per 100 000 flying hours. Unless something happened in the last year or two to make flying 66% less hazardous. The RAA website says that flying is safe. Setting aside the issue that "safe" is not really a word that safety professionals use, I offer the following. If you fly 50 hours a year, your risk of dying from RAA is 1.5 in 50 000 hour, or 1.5 in 1000 for the year. The ABS tells us that the chance of dying is about 1 in 1000 for primary school aged children (the safest age to be) and climbs to about 2 in 1000 for middle aged people like me. So, if you take your kids flying 50 hours a year, if they die, there is a 50% chance that it will be in your airplane. (Actually, many of those who died will have had already-known illnesses. So, if your children are healthy, and if your child dies, it will *probably* be in your airplane.) I intend to fly with my children, so maybe RAA is safe after all. I still think that the RAA website is lying.
APenNameAndThatA Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 So the hours flown nearly doubled from 2106 to 2017? Sounds like RAAus has discovered the GFA method of reducing the fatality rate per 100,000 hours. Just fake the hours by exaggerating them greatly."Insanely good" ? I'd say "unbelievably good". Oh, is THAT what happened? Sounds about right. That makes the RAA statement that flying is safe tripple the lie I thought it was.
facthunter Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 Go on the operating table under anaesthetic for anything much . Probably a 2% (or more) risk of dying in the next hour would be a common scenario. The thing about operating an aircraft that you aren't FORCED to fly is that YOU control most of the risk factors.. Accept that and take responsibility for it and we will be in a world of more reality. RAAus can't make you safe IF you work hard at not being safe. Nev 1
fly_tornado Posted January 21, 2018 Posted January 21, 2018 I heard some board member of RAA say on a podcast that the rate of fatal accidents was 1 in 100 000 flying hours. That was about as close to a lie as you can get. It's not a lie if you believe it.
facthunter Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 Where does it say that in an authoritative source? If a figure is quoted it is either correct or wrong by varying degrees. Nev
APenNameAndThatA Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 Go on the operating table under anaesthetic for anything much . Probably a 2% (or more) risk of dying in the next hour would be a common scenario. The thing about operating an aircraft that you aren't FORCED to fly is that YOU control most of the risk factors.. Accept that and take responsibility for it and we will be in a world of more reality. RAAus can't make you safe IF you work hard at not being safe. Nev Deaths under anaesthetic are about 1 in 100 000. So, hour for hour, flying an aircraft is about twice as dangerous as being under anaesthetic! (Happy to be corrected.) (Ref: what I thought anyway, and one of the first Google hits: Risks and complications - ANZCA). Also, being under anaesthetic is a bit like flying: the most dangerous bits are taking off and landing!
APenNameAndThatA Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 It's not a lie if you believe it. That is actually a genuinely true fact that I had not considered.
APenNameAndThatA Posted January 22, 2018 Posted January 22, 2018 Where does it say that in an authoritative source? If a figure is quoted it is either correct or wrong by varying degrees. Nev I was going off an orange box earlier in the thread.
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