jackc Posted March 10 Posted March 10 On 10/03/2025 at 10:03 PM, facthunter said: Thats just muddying the waters, The last reference is about appealing the Coroners Findings. A state Prosecutor DECIDES IF it goes to Court. I DON"T believe that has happened yet. Nev Expand But I would have to say the pressure will be on, public opinion will be part of that. Not to mention the general publicity, amongst the wider community?
Love to fly Posted March 10 Posted March 10 On 10/03/2025 at 10:03 PM, facthunter said: Thats just muddying the waters, The last reference is about appealing the Coroners Findings. A state Prosecutor DECIDES IF it goes to Court. I DON"T believe that has happened yet. Nev Expand Sure. Agree 💯 re referral doesn't mean it will go further. Just responded to your comment re inquiries vs Court. Thought, maybe wrongly, tad pedantic. 2
turboplanner Posted March 10 Posted March 10 On 10/03/2025 at 10:07 PM, jackc said: But I would have to say the pressure will be on, public opinion will be part of that. Not to mention the general publicity, amongst the wider community? Expand That just relates to what was referred to the DPP regarding the actions of whoever was referred, so a very narrow field, not the wider community. If there's a clain, that's when they can look at you.
facthunter Posted March 10 Posted March 10 Wasn't THAT what the Main Concern was all about? Member's Liability? Nev
Love to fly Posted March 10 Posted March 10 On 10/03/2025 at 11:50 PM, facthunter said: Wasn't THAT what the Main Concern was all about? Member's Liability? Nev Expand Maybe for some. Some questions it may raise for others will RAAUS continue to exist as it does now? Will an audit raise other governance issues? Should it continue or come back under the casa banner?
jackc Posted March 11 Posted March 11 MORE governance will be the beginning of the end 🤢. Think back to the AUF days and the freedom it once had? RAAus now want to be the new GA?
Love to fly Posted March 11 Posted March 11 On 11/03/2025 at 12:49 AM, jackc said: MORE governance will be the beginning of the end 🤢. Think back to the AUF days and the freedom it once had? RAAus now want to be the new GA? Expand Not about more governance Perhaps if RAAUS can be shown to have demonstrated good governance ie. following their own standards & procedures then there will be no issues. And given current RAAUS registered aircraft can be relatively fast and sophisticated and are a long way from the AUF beginnings its hard to find relevance. 1
jackc Posted March 11 Posted March 11 On 11/03/2025 at 12:58 AM, Love to fly said: Not about more governance Perhaps if RAAUS can be shown to have demonstrated good governance ie. following their own standards & procedures then there will be no issues. And given current RAAUS registered aircraft can be relatively fast and sophisticated and are a long way from the AUF beginnings its hard to find relevance. Expand In some cases, RAAus Flying Schools latest aircraft are unsuitable for RPC training, due to increasing complexity, glass instrumentation. I did my first 18 hours training in a basic Foxbat, a weekend hire pilot bent it, out of service for months of repairs. School replaced the Foxbat with a Sting. It was COVID time, as well. i was told I had to resume training in the new aircraft. I was in 6 hours credit for lessons, I said it’s too complex for me to fly, I was 72 years old at the time. I was refused a refund. I did my own assessment as to my ability to learn the new aircraft, it was too slick for me, at my age. Sadly, that aircraft crashed into the sea, 2 months ago and my 18 hour instructor went with it 🤢 along with right seat instructor with him, both now deceased 🤢WHY? Be no RAAus investigation, on the crash with 2 RAA instructors. Some of the newer RAAus training aircraft are not suitable, due to their complexity ? Just like putting L plates, on a Ferrari for drivers licence training. 1 1
facthunter Posted March 11 Posted March 11 RAAus SAID "WE ARE the NEW GA " Years ago. Predictably that went down like a LEAD balloon. LtF they are still stall speed limited 45 Kts,.. Weight limit means you build light. Usually 310Kgs Basic Wt. That's good without carbon fibre. Nev 1
kgwilson Posted March 11 Posted March 11 My all alloy amateur build was supposed to be 313kg but after adding electric flaps, Matco wheels & disk brakes, wing tanks extra instruments & comfort stuff it ended up at 335kg. This still left 265kg which is still 45kgs under for me with full 170 litres of fuel, me & 20kg of baggage. With Pilot & medium weight passenger I am on the limit with 2/3 wing tanks full but everything else. Carbon fibre jockeys should do somewhat better with weight. 1
Methusala Posted March 11 Posted March 11 (edited) On 16/02/2025 at 1:45 AM, Methusala said: Be interesting to see response from DPP. Expand Deleted Edited March 11 by Methusala
Methusala Posted March 11 Posted March 11 On 10/03/2025 at 5:19 AM, facthunter said: Has the DPP made the decision YET? To Me, that's still to be done. A referral is just that.. Nev Expand See my above re-quote
poteroo Posted March 13 Posted March 13 DPP will be looking at the published requirements for transitioning pilots from another RAAO across to RAAus, because the trail of decision making has to start back when the pilot first approached the CFI with his request to obtain a RPC. It appears to me that the initial decision by the CFI was the critical one:which lead to a cascade of weak decisions by those concerned. Looking at the Ops Manual informs me that a paraglider does not meet the requirements for transitioning. SECTION 2.13 5. C. (1) & (3) states clearly that the experience claimed must be 'of the same type and group' as the RAAus operate. A paraglider is non-powered to start with, while the J-230 is in the HP group of RAAus. Let common sense prevail even if the wording could perhaps be more positive. As a CFI, you are often asked about transition requirements, and more often than not, you need to wisely 'discover' that what the proponent seeks is impossible. Sometimes the reaction is volatile, but with age, we should be able to handle that. I think that RAAus needs to spend more time and resources with SIs and CFIs to ensure that there are clear pathways in the sequence of decisions they make. A 'traffic light' approach? These decisions have to be made on the frontline, and not re-directed to managers in Canberra. 2 1 1 1
facthunter Posted March 13 Posted March 13 In that scenario you'd have to be prepared to send the "Difficult" person elsewhere. That also is likely to attract adverse reaction rightly or wrongly and you just pass the problem along to someone else to deal with. Easy to be wise(r) AFTER the fact. Nev 1
BrendAn Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 On 13/03/2025 at 3:48 AM, poteroo said: DPP will be looking at the published requirements for transitioning pilots from another RAAO across to RAAus, because the trail of decision making has to start back when the pilot first approached the CFI with his request to obtain a RPC. It appears to me that the initial decision by the CFI was the critical one:which lead to a cascade of weak decisions by those concerned. Looking at the Ops Manual informs me that a paraglider does not meet the requirements for transitioning. SECTION 2.13 5. C. (1) & (3) states clearly that the experience claimed must be 'of the same type and group' as the RAAus operate. A paraglider is non-powered to start with, while the J-230 is in the HP group of RAAus. Let common sense prevail even if the wording could perhaps be more positive. As a CFI, you are often asked about transition requirements, and more often than not, you need to wisely 'discover' that what the proponent seeks is impossible. Sometimes the reaction is volatile, but with age, we should be able to handle that. I think that RAAus needs to spend more time and resources with SIs and CFIs to ensure that there are clear pathways in the sequence of decisions they make. A 'traffic light' approach? These decisions have to be made on the frontline, and not re-directed to managers in Canberra. Expand the paraglider not qualifying has only been written in the new ops manual because of this accident. 3
BrendAn Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 On 13/03/2025 at 5:12 AM, facthunter said: Then it cannot apply retrospectively to this case. Nev Expand well that would be pretty hard to do . the manual was rewritten to close the paraglider loophole. pretty sure casa told them too. i don't understand what you are saying.
poteroo Posted March 13 Posted March 13 The Ops Manual of the day doesn't spell out - not paragliders? It shouldn't have to - because it clearly is dissimilar to the RAAus type. IMHO, the decision to accept that they are close enough was the ignition point of this whole unfortunate accident. 😕 1
facthunter Posted March 13 Posted March 13 The BAD weather CAUSED the accident. He flew better than most would to stay in the air where he did. HE was overconfident and took risks and would have kept on taking risks most likely. The decision to fly could well be questioned in Hindsight, but we are all good at that. brendAn the LAW existing at the Time is what has to be applied . You have to KNOW the LAW but not what It may be changed to at some future Point, which would be clearly impossible to do. Nev 1
turboplanner Posted March 13 Posted March 13 On 13/03/2025 at 7:37 AM, facthunter said: The BAD weather CAUSED the accident. Expand So they established that he had 5 kmn clear veiw ahead of him? I didn't see that in the report.
BrendAn Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 On 13/03/2025 at 7:37 AM, facthunter said: The BAD weather CAUSED the accident. He flew better than most would to stay in the air where he did. HE was overconfident and took risks and would have kept on taking risks most likely. The decision to fly could well be questioned in Hindsight, but we are all good at that. brendAn the LAW existing at the Time is what has to be applied . You have to KNOW the LAW but not what It may be changed to at some future Point, which would be clearly impossible to do. Nev Expand i think we have our wires crossed. it has nothing to do with the prosecution of that case. it was to close the loophole which allowed matt to use paraglider hours towards a fixed wing licence.
aro Posted March 13 Posted March 13 On 13/03/2025 at 7:37 AM, facthunter said: The BAD weather CAUSED the accident. Expand I assume you are familiar with the idea that accident's don't have a single cause, they are a chain? The chain here was: 1) he was overconfident 2) he was given a license without the required training 3) the weather was bad 4) he look off into bad weather #2 is the direct responsibility of RAAus. Worse, #2 is supposed to mitigate #1 and reduce the chance of #4. Bad weather happens - i can't be changed. 1 1
Methusala Posted March 14 Posted March 14 On 13/03/2025 at 9:56 PM, aro said: 1) he was overconfident 2) he was given a license without the required training Expand I believe that without point number 1 the rest of the chain would fall over. Cause and (then) effect. Not directly RAAus' fault . See point number 1 !
aro Posted March 14 Posted March 14 On 14/03/2025 at 12:39 AM, Methusala said: I believe that without point number 1 the rest of the chain would fall over. Expand The whole point is that if you remove ANY link in the chain the accident wouldn't happen. But the question is whether RAAus failed, not whether there was something else that would have stopped it. Overconfident pilots are not exactly unheard of. 1
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