lowest RA-Aus Member Fatal Accident Rates In Recent Years!

[farri]

I thought this was worth a mention. Part of the RA-Aus Enews.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue 41 January 2018

 

FROM THE CEO.......A big thank you for a small year!

 

 

I am pleased to report all our combined efforts have yielded one of our lowest fatal accident rates in recent years, with 2017 finishing with the loss of 4 members in 4 separate accidents.

 

Of course, even this is four too many but in a pursuit where there is inherent risk we can only aim for an outcome that is as low as reasonably possible and you the members have taken this on board. All in all our members performed some 400,000 movements in 2017, which makes RAAus one of the safest, if not the safest aviation body in Australia.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Yenn]

I noticed the report and while a low accident rate is very good, I wonder about RAAus. Michael Link goes on to say he pauses to senate and also that he sensates a lot. Do you senate? I don’t think I have ever heard senate used as a verb in normal language. He seems to be very good at flowery language which may or may not be really intelligible. A trait common to politicians.

 

$77000 has been used for scholarships and they want to double that. I wonder just what the average member gets from that?

 

There is a nice write up for Southpac Aerospace. What do they do for us? Again rather like the politicians. Pay good money for advice, just to cover your butt.

 

RAAus would do better in my opinion by using plain language such as we use daily, they would also do better by talking to us,rather than just sending us advertising.

 

 

[David Isaac]

'Pause and reflect' would be understood by all.

 

 

[farri]

I`m not saying I agree with everything RA-Aus does but I came to the conclusion long ago that in any area of life, regardless of whoever does whatever, there will always be those who aren't satisfied and would want it done differently!

 

" You can please some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but never! all of the people all of the time."

 

Be thankful only 4 RA-Aus members were lost in 4 fatal accidents last year and hope there aren`t any this year.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Downunder]

I've deleted my post as it was not relevant to this thread. My mistake.

 

But about other Raa isuues and emails in general.

 

It is great that fatalities are low and I hope they stay that way.

 

 

[johnm]

yep - all groups of people fracture eventually (flocks of sheep do the same thing) .................. off the fracture goes and creates something better ? (without talking religion - look at all the different church denominations in any town)

 

all groups of people have leaders (or assume they are leaders). It must be some sort of secret thing that a driven minority in a group clicks with ................. and the result are leaders filtering to the top of the group (a bad use of the word 'top')

 

Its good to see a great leader

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The trend in fatalities has been declining for a while, Mike's deflecting from the real headline, the RAA's new information system is reporting 170,000 more hours flown in 2017. Mike doesn't want to claim that the RAA is a success because of the extra hours flown because he suspects that its an error.

 

 

 

[farri]

Am I missing something here?..."I am pleased to report all our combined efforts have yielded one of our lowest fatal accident rates in recent years"

 

 

Frank.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

2010 had 4 deaths.

 

The short term trend is down though but deaths decline for a lot of reasons. The number of deaths though is within the normal range of 1-3 a quarter.

 

this was all published in the November Sport Pilot

 

The real story is that the RAA pilots are flying so many more hours if the trend continues the RAA will soon be exceeding 1/2 a million hours a year

 

 

 

[Downunder]

Nothing wrong with more hours. Those doing 20 or less a year are far more at risk than those doing 80 or 100 in my opinion......

 

 

[fly_tornado]

In another article in the same November edition this graph was used to explain the correlation between fatalities and hours. So accurately recording the number of hours is critical for the understanding of risk.

 

 

 

[fly_tornado]

getting the numbers right is also useful in identifying if the aircraft type is relevant too: here we see #23 aircraft increasing flying hours by 80% whilst reducing landings by 60%

 

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I suspect part of the explanation for increased hours is that we now have the ability to correct the hours flown on our aircraft through the website. When data was lost in the "great server collapse" and failure to back-up some years ago, two of our aircraft had their hours "estimated". He used to pay by phone and got caught on the hop with the question of "how many hours flown, landings, etc" so under reporting compounded. The total hours got updated, but not much thought went into total landings.

 

The other thing I didn't agree with, was the decision to report only pilots as members. Suddenly RAA appeared to have lost 10% of membership. The total membership is about 10,000 (still), but they talk about 9,000.

 

As for scholarships $77K going back into flying schools, aircraft hire etc from member donations to get more people into recreational flying is a good thing.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

those figures I've quote are all fairly current like 2016 and 2017, where the data should now be 99% accurate because the system has had a few years to have the bugs sorted.

 

the 1173 landings in 150 hours in 2016 is a landing every 7.6 minutes, which is incredibly tight circuits.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It would be good to collect GA and RA hours as both contribute to experience and risk exposure.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this chart is quiet unusual

 

have a look at the total hours for each year versus the graph above

 

now have a look at the total number of landings

 

The RAA system is totally broken, where are they getting the data from?

 

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

It would be good to collect GA and RA hours as both contribute to experience and risk exposure.

Try this Australian Aircraft Activity They are a little slow getting the reports out - 2015 is here. RAAus provides the information you supply to them. Unfortunately they can't go back and add hours that were missed (for example) in 2009, so those go in when we updated, in 2016. I'm looking forward to reading 2016, 2017. The Dept are terribly slow asking GA for their figures, I got my request for the previous years in September 2015 (for Jan-Dec 2014), June, July and probably won't see 2017's form for another 5-8 months! Then they have to chase up non-returns, collate, analyse and publish.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

this chart is quiet unusualhave a look at the total hours for each year versus the graph above

 

now have a look at the total number of landings

 

The RAA system is totally broken, where are they getting the data from?

 

[ATTACH=full]53748[/ATTACH]

Agreed FT - the figures are quite weird. Looking at 2013 95-10s = a landing every 7.5 minutes! Perhaps most of them were overweight old pilots bouncing their Wheeler Scouts down the runway?

 

I suspect there has been many a slip up with data input, by admin, by pilots and others; and there hasn't been the resources to track them down and correct. A quick analysis of outliers should bring up most anomalies, but you have to love figures, not everyone does.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I guess the strategy is just keep throwing money at the system until it works

 

 

[Mick]

I suspect the recent jump in hours is acheived by adding the total number of hours flown by pilots to the total number of hours flown by aircraft.

 

 

[scre80]

I noticed the report and while a low accident rate is very good, I wonder about RAAus. Michael Link goes on to say he pauses to senate and also that he sensates a lot. Do you senate? I don’t think I have ever heard senate used as a verb in normal language. He seems to be very good at flowery language which may or may not be really intelligible. A trait common to politicians.$77000 has been used for scholarships and they want to double that. I wonder just what the average member gets from that?

There is a nice write up for Southpac Aerospace. What do they do for us? Again rather like the politicians. Pay good money for advice, just to cover your butt.

 

RAAus would do better in my opinion by using plain language such as we use daily, they would also do better by talking to us,rather than just sending us advertising.

I was a lucky recipient of a scholarship, and I can tell you that doing my instructor rating now is giving back to our club and new recreational aviation members where we are all volunteer instructors. With this assistance, it means we can continue to provide additional instructors for minimal cost.

 

 

[Yenn]

Scre80 it is good to know that there is a plus for the scholarships. I find RAAus outpourings a bit too much self congratulation. More fine details instead of airy fairy mouthing would suit me better.

 

 

[scre80]

Scre80 it is good to know that there is a plus for the scholarships. I find RAAus outpourings a bit too much self congratulation. More fine details instead of airy fairy mouthing would suit me better.

Always hard to please everyone!!!. Also know a few other recipients of the scholarships, all very grateful and has helped them to their aviation career / passion.

 

 

[Yenn]

If I hadn’t asked I wouldn’t have known about them. A bit more info from RAAus could keep us informed.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

this chart is quiet unusualhave a look at the total hours for each year versus the graph above

 

now have a look at the total number of landings

 

The RAA system is totally broken, where are they getting the data from?

 

[ATTACH=full]53748[/ATTACH]

The BITRE reports of 2014 and 2015 notes (Table 12) "All statistics courtesy of Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus). These statistics are subject to revision. BITRE recommends caustion when using these statistics."

Interestingly, the 2015 table shows total hours flown for RA-Aus aircraft as 151,600 hours in 2013 and 171,100 in 2014 which differ markedly from the 2014 table which show 181,100 for 2013 and 146,500 for 2014. The table in post #16 shows 151,411 for 2013 and 188,737 for 2014.

 

This means that the calculated accident rate is variable and cannot be relied upon (ATSB uses BITRE stats) so does the huge jump in hours flown recently mask or seek to improve the accident rate to enhance the argument that self administering bodies are the way to go so as to prop up the argument for the introduction of Part 149? Who was it that said "facts, figures and damned lies"?