RA-Aus Don't Know How to Do "Occurrence Management

[turboplanner]

https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/airspace/airspace-regulation/radio-procedures-non-controlled-airspace?_gl=1*abaobl*_ga*NjMxODM3MjA0LjE2NjEwMzExMTU.*_ga_8EDBG2MRXK*MTY2NTYzMDczOC4xLjAuMTY2NTYzMDczOC4wLjAuMA..

[onetrack]

In Turbo's link to the CASA document, there in nothing in the link provided to CAR 166 - (Radio broadcasting by pilots overflying non-designated, non-controlled aerodromes) because the "guidance material" has been removed by CASA.

 

Many flight operations rules changed on December 2, and CASA freely admits they're way behind in trying to update to current information.

I have never seen such a CF of regulations that are no longer in use, and regulations that have been updated - but you can't find the updated information - and there are dead links everywhere. 

The whole system looks like it's in need of a good root-and-branch pruning session.

 

https://aviationidaustralia.net.au/navigating-the-new-rules/

 

Advisory Circular 91-10 and 91-14 actually provide updated aerodrome and collision avoidance information that is current from 02 Dec 2021 - but there are still numerous advisories in circulation from 2010 to 2013, that are now obsolete, and which should be removed. Many aerodrome operators are still showing obsolete advisories.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-vicinity-non-controlled-aerodromes

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/pilots-responsibility-collision-avoidance

 

 

[facthunter]

Aviation doesn't need CONFUSION. Lift the game CASA. .  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I really liked the idea that a bbq be held to discuss the whole thing and recommend solutions.

At Gawler, we have not had a fatality in about 55 years, and I think we would have done this.

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I really liked the idea that a bbq be held to discuss the whole thing and recommend solutions.

At Gawler, we have not had a fatality in about 55 years, and I think we would have done this.

Yeah, but what have you done at Edenhope?

What if I come charging in saying "Gday guys, is there a taxi in town?"

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

In Turbo's link to the CASA document, there in nothing in the link provided to CAR 166 - (Radio broadcasting by pilots overflying non-designated, non-controlled aerodromes) because the "guidance material" has been removed by CASA.

 

Many flight operations rules changed on December 2, and CASA freely admits they're way behind in trying to update to current information.

I have never seen such a CF of regulations that are no longer in use, and regulations that have been updated - but you can't find the updated information - and there are dead links everywhere. 

The whole system looks like it's in need of a good root-and-branch pruning session.

 

https://aviationidaustralia.net.au/navigating-the-new-rules/

 

Advisory Circular 91-10 and 91-14 actually provide updated aerodrome and collision avoidance information that is current from 02 Dec 2021 - but there are still numerous advisories in circulation from 2010 to 2013, that are now obsolete, and which should be removed. Many aerodrome operators are still showing obsolete advisories.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-vicinity-non-controlled-aerodromes

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/pilots-responsibility-collision-avoidance

 

 

So what are you saying, remembering we are talking about local traffic on a crowded airfield? You don't want to use the latest link? Would it be a help putting the link in the airfield's ERSA entry?

[onetrack]

Turbo, what I'm saying is there are dead links all through the CASA webpages. I posted the newest links that work - but you'd think someone like CASA would be thorough enough to go through their webpages, and eliminate dead links and advice to look at things such as CAR 166, which is now obsolete.

Obviously, they work on the basis that if they leave a dead link, pilots must be smart enough to figure out that that advice is no longer current.

 

I would have thought that all aerodromes and airstrip sites, as well as ERSA, would have kept up to date with links and current advisories, but it doesn't appear that way to me, I still find dead links in ERSA.

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by onetrack

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, onetrack said:

Turbo, what I'm saying is there are dead links all through the CASA webpages. I posted the newest links that work - but you'd think someone like CASA would be thorough enough to go through their webpages, and eliminate dead links and advice to look at things such as CAR 166, which is now obsolete.

Obviously, they work on the basis that if they leave a dead link, pilots must be smart enough to figure out that that advice is no longer current.

Well that's not acceptable for a safety organisation, particularly when sites can be programmed to self delete.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs, the town could be walked to, but if you arrive and call me, i will be delighted to look after you.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There is no Taxi as far as i know.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There is no Taxi as far as i know.

Well we were talking about radio calls........

[Ironpot]

I overflew Caboolture/Caloundra yesterday afternoon i.e. 125.85 and had the opportunity to listen-in for a while. 

 

FWIW most of the traffic appeared to be for and in the circuit at Caloundra.

 

I was surprised how little appeared to have ADSB out. However quite a few showed up on AvPlan.

[kgwilson]

This CASA link to deleted pages has been evident for close to 2 months that I know of. I wanted to check some details on CAR 166-1 and CAR166-2 so googled them and both failed. then I tried some others and the result was the same.

 

Businesses update their websites all the time and this is the only time I have come across such a poor upgrade process. Either they get all the google link data modified or they have a page redirect from the one that no longer exists. Who the hell is running this mob?

[kgwilson]

Hopefully the ADSB situation will change as more pilots take advantage of the 50% rebate system. For a total cost to the pilot of $510.00-$550.00 having ADSB in and out with a Skyecho 2 is a no brainer.

When I put my application in on 30 August I was the 244th applicant. There are plenty of GA with mode C only & RA with nothing out there. Avplan/Ozrunways is OK if you have these but there is considerable latency as they use the cellular network as well as reception issues.

Edited October 13, 2022 by kgwilson

[old man emu]

On 12/10/2022 at 7:25 AM, APenNameAndThatA said:

saying that it was still my fault because even though I had right of way was still my fault because I should have been on the lookout for an aircraft approaching from above and behind me and seen it before it got up beside me.

This is confusing me. Can anyone explain to me how the pilot of a typical light aircraft WHICH IS NOT FITTED WITH A REAR VIEW MIRROR can be expected to see an aircraft approaching from the rear, either above or below? And if that aircraft is approaching  does that not imply that it is travelling faster then the one in front? Therefore the approaching aircraft is overtaking and should pass to the right with a clearance of 150 metres horizontally or vertically whichever is applicable.

[kgwilson]

One of the guys at our aerodrome went on the Outback air race in his Mooney M20J. We were discussing the benefits of ADSB in. He was unaware that the SE2 interfaced with his Avplan and the latency of the cellular system. He noticed an aircraft on a closing course on Avplan & called Brisbane centre. They advised that they had seen the aircraft & it had already gone past his track.

[Ironpot]

On 18/6/2022 at 9:35 AM, APenNameAndThatA said:

A couple of years ago, I was involved in an incident at Caboolture. I sent RA-Aus a written statement. Later, *without them ever speaking to me at all*, the following turned up in my account when I logged in one day, the following appeared, 

 

"Whilst conducting circuits the pilot observed a Piper Pawnee tug about 30 to 50 m to their right and then a couple of meters in front and higher than them. The pilot then made a radio call to the tug saying that they were directly beneath them on downwind. No response was heard. The pilot made a full stop to discuss with their instructor. Investigation revealed poor communication between the two aircraft contributed to the proximity event. Pilots are reminded of CAAP 166 - Operators at non-controlled airports for required procedures, calls and requirements."

 

After I discussed the matter with them, RA-Aus changed the occurrence report to the following. 

 

"Whilst downwind the pilot observed a Piper Pawnee tow plane above them. The pilot then made a radio call to the tug saying that they were directly beneath them on downwind. No response was heard. The pilot made a full stop to discuss with their instructor. Review of this occurrence indicated that both pilots reported to make radio calls, however it is unknown why two-way communication was not established. The pilot of the tow plane was briefed to ensure they continue to see and avoid other aircraft when operating."

 

I was prompted to post this because someone on this forum (quite reasonably) posted that a technical person at RA-Aus said that people did not tell RA-Aus about human factors things so it was hard for RA-Aus to deal with them (or words to that effect). My point is that, when it comes to incident investigation, RA-Aus is pure amateur hour. A while ago I think I posted that there had been a year with fewer than average accidents and RA-Aus said in one of their emails how safe how safe flying was. IIRC, I emailed them back to let them know that about random being more irregular than people think and about regression to them mean. They emailed me to say that they would "engage with" me. I left them to it. 

 

 

 

 

Following the tragedy at YCAB, I had to just check my memory of this post. Turns out that it was more poignant than I remembered. 
Condolences to all concerned.