Accident/Incident Investigation By RAAus?

[jackc]

From comments in another thread, it seems that  RAAus don’t want to participate in investigation of crashes involving RAA aircraft? 
I was under the impression that CASA under Part 149 has told RAAus they must carry out crash investigations involving RAA aircraft, however the required framework for this to happen, has not been completed etc?
I am commenting based on my limited knowledge of the subject, but in my opinion there seems to be some deficiencies here?

Does RAAus not want to be involved?  Or is the development of the required framework a large task to undertake?  
An enquiring member wants to know……..

[facthunter]

The police do it. The cost would send RAAus broke. Nev

[skippydiesel]

I had  feeling RAA gets involved, in an advisory capacity ???

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

I had  feeling RAA gets involved, in an advisory capacity ???

They do.

[jackc]

So do we as members end up with the complete investigation that has RAA and Police involvement?

[turboplanner]

54 minutes ago, jackc said:

So do we as members end up with the complete investigation that has RAA and Police involvement?

You would find a lot more facts if you read the posts you've been given, and went to the source material.

 Just repeating some of it again:  The State/Territory Police investigate the accident, and where they deem necessary call in Recreational Aviation Australia for advice, and then prepare a Brief which goes to the State/Territory Coroner.

The State/Territory Coroner makes a decision on the cause of death, and produces a report with recommendations (if any).

[Roundsounds]

It’s good to see the Head of Safety reporting lines now reflect best practice. 

[jackc]

This Part 149 document is where the answer must lie, so maybe I should ask CASA the question and see what comes of that ? 

[440032]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

This Part 149 document is where the answer must lie, so maybe I should ask CASA the question and see what comes of that ? 

Ask CASA????

Why not just go look in Part 149 yourself? I just did, it took me one minute.

[jackc]

28 minutes ago, 440032 said:

Ask CASA????

Why not just go look in Part 149 yourself? I just did, it took me one minute.

I have scoured the document and can’t find anything relating…….so when in doubt,   ask 🙂 

[spacesailor]

For those sitting on the sidelines ! .

Please post.  What is in " part 149 " .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Motivate US. The REGS won't tell you how it's actually done.  It needs an Aviation Lawyer to interpret them.  Nev

[spacesailor]

Please see previous post .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Don't take it personally, but it does nothing for me. WE KNOW it's prioritised and MONEY is the limiting factor.  Nev

[440032]

5 hours ago, jackc said:

I have scoured the document and can’t find anything relating…….so when in doubt,   ask 🙂 

Can't find anything on accidents or investigations?

There's the answer. (Not part of Part 149 organisation requirements).

 

CASA isn't going to say ""oh, and here's a list of what you do not have to be involved with:"

[FlyBoy1960]

The following comes from an RA-Aus executive visit to our airfield from the very best of my memory.

 

You will remember some time ago there were a number of crashes and also fatalities from some yellow aircraft that were flying around Melbourne.

 

The RA-Aus were called into assist with the investigation and provided resources to their best ability.

 

It was discovered that weight and balance information supplied by the manufacturer/importer were wrong, spin testing had not been completed or documented and a whole heap of other problems that made the situation 100 times worse than what he would have normally have been.

 

The RA-Aus took the opportunity to put special conditions on these aircraft like, they are not to be used for training, they are not to be stalled and so on.

 

The said manufacturer and importer declared that the RA-Aus was putting them out of business even though their aircraft were not compliant by flying on deliberately falsified documentation. The RA-Aus were then taken to court and a hugely expensive litigation battle followed which cost the RA-Aus over 6 figures to defend just in lawyer fees, plus thousands of hours worked by their people which just get absorbed into the cost of doing business for the Association.

 

The RA-Aus don't want to ever be in that position again because 2 or 3 of these importers would send them broke.

 

There was no coverage against legal action by CASA or the ATSB  and the participation of the RA-Aus was at a huge, substantial risk financially to guide any future investigations.

The RA-Aus simply said that unless we are offered idemnity insurance by CASA then they would not participate in any more accident investigations because of the liability.

 

This ended the RA-Aus accident investigation process unless called upon by the police as an expert witness.

 

Apparently the expert witness is answerable to the Police who request the assistance and nobody else, and because of this can't be litigated against. This gives the RA-Aus some level of protection but they don't want to be in a situation where this happens again, ever, therefore they don't do any thorough accident investigations where they make findings against a manufacturer, and importer or a supplier.

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

The following comes from an RA-Aus executive visit to our airfield from the very best of my memory.

 

You will remember some time ago there were a number of crashes and also fatalities from some yellow aircraft that were flying around Melbourne.

 

The RA-Aus were called into assist with the investigation and provided resources to their best ability.

 

It was discovered that weight and balance information supplied by the manufacturer/importer were wrong, spin testing had not been completed or documented and a whole heap of other problems that made the situation 100 times worse than what he would have normally have been.

 

The RA-Aus took the opportunity to put special conditions on these aircraft like, they are not to be used for training, they are not to be stalled and so on.

 

The said manufacturer and importer declared that the RA-Aus was putting them out of business even though their aircraft were not compliant by flying on deliberately falsified documentation. The RA-Aus were then taken to court and a hugely expensive litigation battle followed which cost the RA-Aus over 6 figures to defend just in lawyer fees, plus thousands of hours worked by their people which just get absorbed into the cost of doing business for the Association.

 

The RA-Aus don't want to ever be in that position again because 2 or 3 of these importers would send them broke.

 

There was no coverage against legal action by CASA or the ATSB  and the participation of the RA-Aus was at a huge, substantial risk financially to guide any future investigations.

The RA-Aus simply said that unless we are offered idemnity insurance by CASA then they would not participate in any more accident investigations because of the liability.

 

This ended the RA-Aus accident investigation process unless called upon by the police as an expert witness.

 

Apparently the expert witness is answerable to the Police who request the assistance and nobody else, and because of this can't be litigated against. This gives the RA-Aus some level of protection but they don't want to be in a situation where this happens again, ever, therefore they don't do any thorough accident investigations where they make findings against a manufacturer, and importer or a supplier.

 

Although this was posted in good faith this information was hearsay and may or may not have been the exact procedure. It seems to indicate RAA was acting as a Governing Body which could have led to the legal expenses of proof. Do you remember ever seeing the Court report or Austlii details, which whould tell us what the exact path was. One of the things you have to deal with when a government Department drops it'sprescriptive Act is avoid taking the same path, so as an example, when Victoria closed down its Department of Labour and Industry which used to inspect all lifting chains etc. the participants doing a lift had the responsibility of doing their own specifying and testing and are now sued directly by the injured party.

There was a period where no one knew what limits to use. We chose Minimum Safe Recommendations which over the years became Benchmarks, and these days Industry Benchmarks, such as Australian Standards are often used as guidelines.

In a case where someone is injured he would normally sue the provider of the equipment for breach of duty of care if the equipment didn't meet the benchmark, so the Association of Weightlifting Equipment, having only provided a recommendation might to be spending any money at all.

 

Then, going on to Investigations, there's merit in the affordability of providing assistance to Police who have protection.

 

[FlyBoy1960]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Although this was posted in good faith this information was hearsay and may or may not have been the exact procedure.

 

It wasnt hearsay, it came first hand from the then CEO of the RA-Aus. 

 

I am repeating the event from memory of about 18 months ago. 

 

It's not the usual Saturday morning 'hanger gossip'

[turboplanner]

Look up the legal definition of hearsay and you'll see what the problem is; it's not your memory, just what we could do.

[jackc]

12 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

It wasnt hearsay, it came first hand from the then CEO of the RA-Aus. 

 

I am repeating the event from memory of about 18 months ago. 

 

It's not the usual Saturday morning 'hanger gossip'

The he said, she said is not acceptable. A signed/written statement of facts as described is the only acceptable description of what went on.  When humans describe an event  verbally in person, they say whatever it takes to present themselves in a good light, and cover up anything that describes otherwise. That is human nature…….

[FlyBoy1960]

well, the GFA report on the other thread pretty much says exactly the same thing.

 

No insurance coverage for investigators who leave themselves wide open for liability.

 

The report written independently by GFA person is almost verbatim for what we were told by the RA-Aus and this is the real reason why they are no longer investigating. Getting dragged into court by aircraft manufacturers or importers will very quickly send them broke even if they are not at fault.

 

They probably wouldn't get taken to court if they had idemnity from CASA for ATSB or whoever because the ambulance chasing lawyer representing a grieving widow would know from the start that they won't win.