Positive no blame reporting culture

[facthunter]

Aren't we discussing REPORTING here? Some responsible person (supposedly) decides on a figure and if it's exceeded certain things are supposed to happen.. If I wanted to clear a mountain top I would worry less about limits. There's margins of safety in nearly all limits but that doesn't mean you ignore them unless there's an emergency. IF I fly a certified aircraft I expect rules be adhered to. Nev

[Jim McDowall]

IF I fly a certified aircraft I expect rules be adhered to

Shouldn't that be ANY aircraft?

[facthunter]

No. I believe many restrictions can and should be reduced for simple planes. If they operated to RPT standards we could not afford to fly them. WE have higher requirements for training aircraft. LESS for others. A case of "Horses for Courses". You seek the right balance. Nev

[Flightrite]

NO rules 'should' be broken regardless!

[Bruce Tuncks]

Good points Nev. but another way of looking at this stuff is to say that the authority is at fault for not having a trusted no-fault reporting system in place.

We shouldn't even be debating this issue. The fact that we are debating it shows that not everybody has the trust they should be entitled to.

Actually, I trust the RAAus more than I do CASA. Why? Because RAAus is funded by the likes of me and CASA is not.

[M61A1]

Aren't we discussing REPORTING here? Some responsible person (supposedly) decides on a figure and if it's exceeded certain things are supposed to happen.. If I wanted to clear a mountain top I would worry less about limits. There's margins of safety in nearly all limits but that doesn't mean you ignore them unless there's an emergency. IF I fly a certified aircraft I expect rules be adhered to. Nev

Apologies Nev, I was thinking from a maintenance view rather than a pilot's and misinterpreted what you were getting at.

along a similar line...some pilots have trouble with the interpretation. For example there is a significant difference between "land as soon as possible" and "land as soon as practicable". Those who misinterpret "as soon as practicable" often create logistical nightmares, but never suffer any criticism.

[turboplanner]

Good points Nev. but another way of looking at this stuff is to say that the authority is at fault for not having a trusted no-fault reporting system in place.

We shouldn't even be debating this issue. The fact that we are debating it shows that not everybody has the trust they should be entitled to.

Actually, I trust the RAAus more than I do CASA. Why? Because RAAus is funded by the likes of me and CASA is not.

This thread has expanded from the simple difference between CASA prescribed regulations (so much the same drivers as State Government Car legislation) with proscribed and prescribed operations where the governments are underwriting the operations, and Self administering organizations where the SAO is given freedoms from Government in return for assuming liabilitity for their operations. (in the first case dishonest reporting can sometimes offload financial consequences on to the taxpayer; in the second case the financial consequences usually finish up back on the head of the perpetrator and his/her organisation.

 

There's nothing wrong with expending the discussion but reporting in the context of what may have happened to an aircraft (engine overspeed, exceed VNE, heavy landing, incorrect lubricant, wiring fault etc) will vary substantially with the regime of the operator, e.g. Defence, RPT, Commercial/Charter, Private GA, Recreational, so we should be careful not to roll them all into one ball, and cause confusion. For exanple the Maintenance Release plays a much bigger part in Private GA flying than most pilots think, if there's an accident.

[Bruce Tuncks]

You answered a question there turbs. If your maintenance release ( the raaus has a bit different name ) is not entirely up to scrutiny, then you are stupid to own up to an incident, is what I think you are saying.

[turboplanner]

You answered a question there turbs. If your maintenance release ( the raaus has a bit different name ) is not entirely up to scrutiny, then you are stupid to own up to an incident, is what I think you are saying.

In VH if the MR is not up to scrutiny and you fly anyway and CASA catches you, you get the allocated penalty.

In Self Administration if you do the same you'll pay for anyone you injure or kill.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep, if I ever injure or kill anybody, the first thing I will attend to will be to check my paperwork. ( Before ringing the ambulance?.. just joking ) .There are lots of other things though which are not so serious, like flying with an electrical "lash-up " which I reckon would have been illegal.

[APenNameAndThatA]

Mid 90’s. Nope copilot callout was correct a parameter was approaching limits. This engine (Lyc T-53) had no recording system so there was no way to know the actual value reached. Hung out to dry means there was a lot said and done that I disagreed with. Basically the N2 in a turbine engine is the compressor stage attached to the gearbox attached to whatever it’s turning. So overspeeding that overspeeds gearbox’s, accessories, pumps, and lots of expensive parts. If you overspeed by a certain amount (major) it’s pretty much take every part and throw it in the bin! There are a number of gov’s that should have prevented it actually overspeeding and to this day I don’t think it did. I reported it to be safe. Can’t edit original post to fix my typing errors (pressed post instead or preview) so sorry for the grammar.

 

Technically, people saying and doing things that you do not agree with does not mean that there is not a just, or "no-blame", culture. If you don't want to say more, then fair enough.

[APenNameAndThatA]

Good points Nev. but another way of looking at this stuff is to say that the authority is at fault for not having a trusted no-fault reporting system in place.

We shouldn't even be debating this issue. The fact that we are debating it shows that not everybody has the trust they should be entitled to.

Actually, I trust the RAAus more than I do CASA. Why? Because RAAus is funded by the likes of me and CASA is not.

No one is entitled to feel a particular way. I do not think that it is possible to give iron-clad guarantees about reporting because the line between making an innocent mistake in the context of diligent flying, and being reckless is not easy to define. As I have said before, there is a literature about this but I have no read it. Start with James Reason. My understanding is that a just culture and human factors actually *started* with aviation. They could not punish pilots who made mistakes, so they had to come up with a new approach.

[Downunder]

.

[facthunter]

The Aviation Game is way ahead of Medicine in this respect and that is recognised by many informed people in the medical sphere. We can't be smug about it if we don't maintain the manner of reporting and response to it which produced that desired result.. The OLD AUF etc leaked like a sieve, I'm sorry to inform you. Nev.

[Downunder]

Actually, I trust the RAAus more than I do CASA. Why? Because RAAus is funded by the likes of me and CASA is not.

I am actually the opposite. When there's money involved things are more likely to become distorted.

[Flightrite]

If you have paid taxes in Australia you have funded CASA, they will thank you for it?

[Jim McDowall]

Bruce what have you learn't from gliding. As the GFA collapses the remaining membership is increasingly regarded as a milch cow and to justify their continuing existence to CASA they keep making up new rules to de-incentivise members. Got your latest missive on BFR's from ASC yet?

[turboplanner]

No one is entitled to feel a particular way. I do not think that it is possible to give iron-clad guarantees about reporting because the line between making an innocent mistake in the context of diligent flying, and being reckless is not easy to define. As I have said before, there is a literature about this but I have no read it. Start with James Reason. My understanding is that a just culture and human factors actually *started* with aviation. They could not punish pilots who made mistakes, so they had to come up with a new approach.

It's not that hard; this isn't legal advice but gives you the general idea.

If there's a reasonably forseeable risk in what you're about to do, don't do it or someone has the trigger to sue you and win.

Even if you did it by mistake they can sue you and win, which is why we had developed training regimes, standards, procedures etc for protection.

 

If you know there's a forseeable risk and you do it anyway, you are likely to cross the line into criminal charges.

 

If the risk is not forseeable, then there might be a no blame case to explore, and the bulk of PL lawsuits are settled out of Court.

 

There's not a lot of point in trying to figure out where all this started, but if you fly in a Self Administering Organisation, you're flying under some exceptions to the GA regulations. However once you open the gate and stand airside you have to abide by all the other CASA, Airservice, ATSB regulations which are not exempted, and that seems to be where most RA pilots fall down. Plenty have told me they were never told. Others have bought US books which don't apply here.

 

For example, this is the ATSB to the link about Self Reporting and what the conditions are. Not hard to find, not hard to follow.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary/asrs/

[facthunter]

Like IF a certain "importer" sponsors a major Aviation event are THEY expecting preferential treatment? The question is why would they if it didn't?

He who pays the Piper CALLS the tune. . Many organisations will be hard on employees /members to get CASA off their 'backs". "WE don't want those Bas**rds snooping around here". So the "internal" punishment system is more severe than it otherwise would be.. Self regulation can go the other way also. Sweep everything under the carpet. Silence Unions and whistleblowers. Outsource more. Boeing in the US. Nev

[Yenn]

So what is the difference between "possible" and "practicable"? I read them as both being the same, but then I have only been using English for 80 years.

[Flightrite]

ASAPossible has a much higher urgency attached to it where as ASAPracticable means just that, as far as practicable taking into all other considerations including the commercial aspect of the operation.

[M61A1]

So what is the difference between "possible" and "practicable"? I read them as both being the same, but then I have only been using English for 80 years.

"As soon as possible" is the same as immediately , a paddock , road, or whatever is available, essentially for when failure may be imminent . "As soon as practicable", means land as soon as you have somewhere suitable to land.

Perhaps if you look at it like this......

1. A fire in flight..Land as soon as possible, you don't care where, as long as you aren't in a burning missile.

2. Your oil pressure is not normal, but there are no other indicators of a problem, head for the nearest strip, to "Land as soon as practicable" but be ready to land ASAP if things worsen.

 

Or you could use your computer to find the following.

 

AS soon as possible

It often takes the form as soon as possible, meaning at the earliest possible moment, as in He'll finish the work as soon as possible. This expression employs possible in the sense of “if it can or could be,” a usage dating from the late 1600s.

 

 

Definition of As soon as practicable

As soon as practicable means as soon as possible and practical taking into account all of the facts and circumstances in the individ- ual case.

[Flightrite]

I recall a few tmes in the Sim (where I would ha w to 'sand bag' a session) land asap was displayed and the hurry to get on the ground was worse than the original fault!

CraZy WX right now, the sun is streaming in thru the window as I watch the snow fall??

[Bruce Tuncks]

Jim, the BFR is an RAAus thing. The GFA require an ANNUAL check flight, that is, twice as often as a BFR.

I think this supports your basic argument.

It is a bit unfair to blame the GFA for CASA actions, or the state of aircraft costs or the inequality in society we are seeing now.

If I were to wind myself back 50 years, so that i was starting out, I don't see that I could afford any flying at all. As it was, I had a steady job and an affordable house, neither of which exist now for young people. The house was in a new subdivision and was $10,500 including land and fencing. I was earning $5,800 pa at that time. The whole thing was so affordable that I could go gliding. Gliding was the cheapest flying in those days, by far.

At the other end of my flying career, a Jabiru ( in kit form ) plus a hangar ( also in kit form ) was the same as the SALES TAX on a new self-launching glider. Yep, the jabiru was $23,900 for the airframe kit plus $11,900 for the engine kit, while the hangar ( shed) was $4000 unbuilt.

A Ventus 2 glider was $150,000 and attracted 26% sales tax. ( If you bought directly from the manufacturer, the sales tax was increased as it was a retail-price tax ). Then there was the freight from Germany which I never pursued... Anyway, 26% of $150000 is $39,000, and if you add up those jabiru costs, they come to $39,800.

[Jim McDowall]

The GFA require an ANNUAL check flight, that is, twice as often as a BFR.

Bruce have a look at GFA's Operations Advice Notice 1/20 (on their website) which mandates BFR's. That document requires among other things:

Pre-Learning•

All pilots must complete an online examination of flight rules (including airspace management), regulations, TEM, HF, and communications prior to undertaking the flying component of the review. Instructors will also be examined on inflight Instruction Technique.

You had better hope that RAAus copy this BS.