Finally Group G is getting closer

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, LoonyBob said:

I don't see a justified safety argument for going full LAME maintenance, or TSO if applicable; the whole basis of "reducaed airworthiness standards" was that GA was exceeding the ICAO target for most everything but pilot error.

The reduced standards were expected to result particularly in more engine failures, so that was offset by a very low stall speed, so when the engine failed, the aircraft could flop down safely onto anything but forests etc. In that mix was the concept that above a certan mass that wouldn't work so well so an upper limit was set.

 

I haven't looked for the actual history of AUF, but I imagine they came up with that as a persuader to CASA and CASAs number crunching was good enough to ensure it wasn't likely to be "banned", a political action which usually followed any conduct which drew too much attention to its injuries or deaths.  

So far, whe I calculated the fatality factor between road vehicles and RA in 2018 on a per mission basis, RA fatalities were 42 times more per 20,000 missions than road vehicles, and clearly that has still been good enough that there's been no political fallout calling for it to be "banned". Given that one of the elements of the current weight increase is that an old +obese pilot can keep flying with the higher limit, it remains to be seen whether medical fatalities will play a part. So CASA in setting the standard has to find a prescriptive formula where they think they will keep the same safety level.

 

As to your comment below: Yes, it is. CASA, in being prescriptive can't guarantee ahead of time that all the forseeable risks will be covered to the same level with the change as they are before it, and they are liable for any overrun at the rate of about $1 to 15 million in theory (the exception being if RAA Ltd set the benchmarks).

6 hours ago, LoonyBob said:

I think the disproportionate "safety" crap is arse covering for liability; thanks Mr Keating!

 

[facthunter]

RAAus caved in to pressure from "someone"  on the LAME requirement for the heavier aircraft servicing. All the BAD mechanical experiences I've had were LAME maintained planes and that's a hell of a lot  of "AIR ANGST" that I didn't cause but suffered from. I'm exceedingly careful  with mechanical stuff. To some , It's just another Job.  Nev

[facthunter]

How unsafe is riding Horses?  How UNSAFE your aircraft OPS is, is mainly in your control. WHEN you fly WHAT  you fly and HOW you fly.  Nev.

[BurnieM]

As regards LAME maintained, I suspect this is partly political; 'my GA plane is LAME maintained so why are the RAA guys getting away with cheaper maintainance'.

 

Same with Basic 5 medical which I suspect will be simialr to us with similar restrictions.

[Blueadventures]

9 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

As regards LAME maintained, I suspect this is partly political; 'my GA plane is LAME maintained so why are the RAA guys getting away with cheaper maintainance'.

 

Same with Basic 5 medical which I suspect will be simialr to us with similar restrictions.

My understanding is that the 'G' aircraft are maintained by LAME and if applicable by the owner / builder of the 'G' aircraft so long as the owner did build the aircraft and has the appropriate maintenance qualification. An example would be a kit aircraft that is bought after being built by another would need to be maintained by a LAME or another authorised person (RAA to advise such in the near future and won't be any of the current L1, 2 or 4's; unless they do further training and qualification / experience.)  Sounds safe and fair to me.

Edited January 29 by Blueadventures

[facthunter]

Should relate to the  materials , construction method and power unit NOT the weight.  At one stage I qualified for the highest L rating but to get it I had to agree to work on stuff that was in the system and some I wouldn't touch with your bargepole. .  Nev

[turboplanner]

18 minutes ago, facthunter said:

How unsafe is riding Horses?  How UNSAFE your aircraft OPS is, is mainly in your control. WHEN you fly WHAT  you fly and HOW you fly.  Nev.

Most of the ABS data is just where the figures fell, not much use to you if you are sitting across the table from a Minister and three staff trying to save your sport, so we have to try and quantify the risk so the minister can decide whether he/she needs to take action or not and if so, wipe out the sport or find a way to go forward. So somehow you have to crunch numbers that can be supported.

 

In answer to your question:

 

Road fatalities are about 1 in 833,333 missions

Horse Riding is considered high risk at 1 in 222,400 missions - 3 x76 times higher.

Ra is 1 in 20,000 missions - 41.6 times higher than Road Vehicles.

 

 

All your "How UNSAFE your aircraft OPS is, is mainly in your control. WHEN you fly WHAT  you fly and HOW you fly" are all valid questions.

 

You start with the "It is what it is" figures of what are the actual injuries and fatalities now" figures.

 

Then you start looking at "What if"

• You change the operations
• You enhance self control by auditing and management
• You enhance fatigue and substance control
• You enhance the environment (airfield surface, obstacles, trees etc)
• You enhance the specification of the aircraft flown
• You enhance skill levels
• You enhance behaviour

Some of those produce better results, faster than others so you focus on those.

 

You then measure against your Benchmark year by year  and check the reasons you got that result. (with RA it could be just a cluster caused by bad weather etc)

 

I assume RAA Ltd is doing all this but doesn't see the need to involve us here in the debate.

 

 

 

[RFguy]

which is interesting context considering the road death count has been going up not down.  I wonder which of that list (above) would be applicable for them to try and target. Of course speed is some issue, of course it is, because if you had zero speed, there would be no accidents.  Can they enhance the skill level of drivers ? I think we're at the point of the limit of what you can due to general human society.  Improves the roads is one way. 

In vehicles you coudl say with the plethora of driver assist tech that we are "You enhance the specification of the aircraft flown" . SUbstance control (RBT) dealt with alcohol in the 70s. 

 

Edited January 29 by RFguy

[facthunter]

 Reply to Turbo..It "IS what it is" is a thing of great variability OVER which the OPERATOR has more control than almost any other Activity that you could name. It's MORE than just not breaking any rules. I think you and I  differ on that one. To be safe(r) in some situations it may be necessary to break rule and be prepared to justify it also.   Nev

Edited January 29 by facthunter
expand

[turboplanner]

Just now, RFguy said:

which is interesting context considering the road death count has been going up not down.  I wonder which of that list (above) would be applicable for them to try and target. Of course speed is some issue, of course it is, because if you had zero speed, there would be no accidents.  Can they enhance the skill level of drivers ? I think we're at the point of the limit of what you can due to general human society.  Improves the roads is one way. 

In vehicles you coudl say with the plethora of driver assist tech that we are "You enhance the specification of the aircraft flown" . SUbstance control dealt with alcohol in the 70s. 

 

Road trauma is currently on a J Curve so yes, going up because of bad decisions. Problem is it's so complex with hundreds of different categories which can make a difference.

Speed control is used because its so easy and certain to prove an offence, and there's an interesting London study of the equivalent to our 40 km/hr zones with one statisic falling on a stationary car and dying to what was happening to each slice of speed. Most people were being killed at up to 2/3 of the speed limit, virtually none above the speed limit.

 

Re my word enhancing, I wasn't necessarily meaning adding to the specification, but making it safer to use which covers a broad spectrum.

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 Reply to Turbo..It "IS what it is" is a thing of great variability OVER which the OPERATOR has more control than almost any other Activity that you could name. It's MORE than just not breaking any rules. I think you and I  differ on that one. To be safe(r) in some situations it may be necessary to break rule and be prepared to justify it also.   Nev

We're not really differing; maybe I should have used different words; if you're about to take action to improve something you need to start with a baseline, which is the sport or industry operating as it does on that day or that year, si just a benchmark of what is happening now. Victoria chose an end of year record of  in 50% of all fatalities the driver was inedbriated; then they moved forward with legislation.

 

[facthunter]

RFguy. The modern Car insulates you from the real world too much so the Really bad accidents have an excess speed and energy factor the safety features don't cope with. Inattention. impatience and lack of basic driving skill will be apparent at higher speeds also. IF you are on the lookout for risk you will cope with it better.  Nev

[Kyle Communications]

Sorry the only person I trust with maintenance and inspection of the aircraft I have my bum in is ME.

Nev is right..to them its just a job they usually dont do the nth degree stuff. 

One reason I build my own is the fact that I can maintain it and I do not fly if there is even one small issue until that issue is fixed.

The rebuild of my Savannah S I bought is case in point. it was built by 2 LAME/L2 guys...look at the rebuild of savannah S blog if you want to see the quality of their work !!!!  no thanks if thats the quality then thats just not good enough..and they built 13 of them I understand.

Even RAAUS gave my rebuild a new kit designation when they saw the pictures I sent..basically because I had to make all new parts like skins and almost everything in Mabel is brand new that I made myself. I bought some frames from the factory and ribs for the wings and firewall but the rest was made by me or totally refurbished. 

I am not saying all LAME are bad of course most are very good but the care and attention to detail is not the same. When you build it yourself and you are flying it yourself the trust factor is extremely higher

 

Mark

 

[facthunter]

Accept the "Buck stops with ME" and act accordingly. Some lame's I have known are  extremely skilled and troubleshoot well but it more than one are working on it over a period, risks of management of job continuity and sign off  become complex. Even distraction by answering the Phone has to be watched and  a deadline on  completion  time is pressure to cut corners. IF you are doing it you can avoid ALL that, IF it's important enough to you.   There is  also "that will have to do for now. I'll get round to doing it properly later. Nev

[turboplanner]

LAME is a specification which is higher than L2 or an untrained home builder.

If LAMES are not working to their standard, then that's an operational issue which should be fixed, and fixed now. That's the action that's required; not just sitting back and allowing accidents to occur.

 

[jackc]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

LAME is a specification which is higher than L2 or an untrained home builder.

If LAMES are not working to their standard, then that's an operational issue which should be fixed, and fixed now. That's the action that's required; not just sitting back and allowing accidents to occur.

 

When I bought my first aircraft……it received its Condition Report and was test flown.

I folded its wings, brought it home on the car trailer.  Back home ‘I’ inspected it and even having NO knowledge of Aircraft and Aviation.  I totally grounded it immediately, I would not allow my worst enemy to fly it. A LAME did the work on it.

My respect for workmanship just went down a mineshaft. 
When I complained to RAA about quality of condition reports.

I was told by a staff member on condition reports,  ‘ we don’t care if your wings are stuck on with blue tack’  

Well guess what, you can all guess what I do now……..

[facthunter]

I'm not doing much other that supporting the case for the owner being involved in maintenance  and repair IF they wish to. It was FUNDAMENTAL to the purpose of this type of aviation from the beginning. Those who aren't competent or don't wish to are still responsible as the operator to ensure al required work is done and signed off..  Nev

[skippydiesel]

"...............Of course speed is some issue, of course it is, because if you had zero speed, there would be no accidents. "

The use of speed as a road safety control/minimisation is a cheap and nasty cop out - at best treats the symptoms, rather than the cause - extremely low level of driving skill.

"Can they enhance the skill level of drivers ? I think we're at the point of the limit of what you can due to general human society. "

If we had something similar to a BFR , say  a true/realistic  driver review every 5 years (or less if you prefere) we would have a chance of raising driver skill to a reasonable level.

 

"Improves the roads is one way. "

Road conditions are a very poor excuse for road accidents - used by those that don't drive too the conditions, as an excuse for their poor driving.

 

A few of our problems-

Cultural

• Having a driving license is regarded as a right, rather than a privilege. 

Political problem

• Politicians are unwilling to address the root cause(s)

Education/Standards/Adherences

• Driver training is very poor
• Testing - a joke
• Policing - Focuses on speed, intoxication & seat belts - where is driving dangerously, lack of courtesy, etc etc?

Road Design/Standardisation

• I could almost write a book on it - Freeway - entry to short to easily accelerate to posted speed / exit slip roads that drop to 60 kph within a few meters of the freeway. Poor & inconsistent signage. Posted speeds inconsistent with road conditions. Mandated forward parking. Roads/lanes too narrow for heavy vehicles ------- ----------etc etc

 

Of course all this is moot - self drive vehicles is almost a reality - there will be no more drivers (on public roads) in a generation or so.

 

[turboplanner]

21 minutes ago, jackc said:

When I bought my first aircraft……it received its Condition Report and was test flown.

I folded its wings, brought it home on the car trailer.  Back home ‘I’ inspected it and even having NO knowledge of Aircraft and Aviation.  I totally grounded it immediately, I would not allow my worst enemy to fly it. A LAME did the work on it.

My respect for workmanship just went down a mineshaft. 
When I complained to RAA about quality of condition reports.

I was told by a staff member on condition reports,  ‘ we don’t care if your wings are stuck on with blue tack’  

Well guess what, you can all guess what I do now……..

If an unflyable aircraft was sIf Ed off by a LAME then CASA was your contact. Is the aircraft flying now?

[facthunter]

A "Condition Report" is a thing of great mystery.  The bi plane my son built out of beer cans hanging in my worship is in good condition, but will never fly. Nev (er)

[jackc]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

A "Condition Report" is a thing of great mystery.  The bi plane my son built out of beer cans hanging in my worship is in good condition, but will never fly. Nev (er)

A ‘Condition Report’ is worthless…..kick the tyres, tickle the Ailerons, stroke the tail, pat the prop, check doors open an shut? Flaps? Yep they are fitted 🙂 that’ll do, it’s good to go 🤢

[RFguy]

like everything and everyone, the 'performance' of a LAME is variable. No surprises.

I think before crucifying LAMEs etc in general, one needs to know context. Did the customer want to spend no money ? Was the customer a PITA ?  Did the aircraft have so many problems the LAME doesnt know where to start without p1ssing off the customer ?

An aircraft can be airworthy but not pass muster under the subjective examination. Subjective !,

[jackc]

In my 30 years of private enterprise, I refused many jobs that related to safety, in Radio Communications, particularly Marine.  Bodgy radio/antenna repairs etc. Before the days of Mobile Phones I used to remind customers ‘its a long swim to a Public Phone Box’ when you are broken down or sinking. NO short cut work from my workshop. 
Just one of many examples……

[jackc]

45 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

If an unflyable aircraft was sIf Ed off by a LAME then CASA was your contact. Is the aircraft flying now?

Aircraft is undergoing full refurbishment, have bought 2 others in the meantime……they can actually be flown 👍 WHY CASA? Not their problem as RAA administers us?

[turboplanner]

32 minutes ago, jackc said:

Aircraft is undergoing full refurbishment, have bought 2 others in the meantime……they can actually be flown 👍 WHY CASA? Not their problem as RAA administers us?

RAA administers L2.