Pride comes after a fall?

[Guest Macnoz]

 

On Sunday last I witnessed, correction heard then looked and saw the end of, an incident at a busy strip.

 

Two aircraft one GA high performance one RAA waiting at hold point for take off.

 

Rag and tube on short final apparently flared high, stalled and dropped on runway broke off a few bits and skewed off the runway to grass verge right way up (ish) of what was left of his craft.

 

Pilot alighted after a few moments stumbled back and picked up cleared bits off runway.

 

Normal activity resumed.

 

 

Little discussion, I won’t say no care, around the traps afterwards.

 

My surmise is what bets that many such are never “reported†in the same way as a non injury or non contactable third part property damage RTA are not (need not) be reported to the police.

 

So do you think “its only a sin if you get caught†ie cannot avoid third party involvement might be prevalent in our midst .

 

Is there a duty of care on others present / witnesses to report such?

 

What of the role of the duty pilot or CFI as per section 4.01 of the ops manual?

 

I realize there are significant self reports etc monthly in our magazine but wonder if we miss much learning opportunities from others minor incidents that go unreported

 

 

[Guest J430]

Hi Mac

 

Just out of interest do you know who it was or which plane it was. I think you are at YCAB a lot and I know a lot of them, including a few rag and tubers.

 

I bet $10 by the way its not reported.....just fixed and not even logged in the log book!

 

Cheers

 

J

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Is there a duty of care on others present / witnesses to report such?

Dificult one that Macnoz, as you say nobody hurt and minor damage. From the info you supplied looks to be one of the fairly common minor prangs so nothing new for others to learn from it.

 

J430s comment about log book entry would be a worry I guess.

 

 

[facthunter]

Legal requirement.

 

I don't think it is up to individuals to assess the significance of an incident/accident. It is a requirement for ANY PERSON becoming aware of a situation involving the safety of an aircraft to report the matter to the responsible authority. Don't shoot me , I am only the messenger. Nev..

 

 

[planedriver]

If I was buying the aircraft, I would be happier to see an entry in the log book however minor the damage, with a note that it had been thoroughly checked out by someone competent after the event, rather than find out the hard way that there was a bit more damage than originally thought.

 

Anyway it looks like the story had a happy ending, which is the main thing.

 

Good stuff.

 

 

[pylon500]

You don't actually point out if the 'Rag and Tube' was an RA-Aus or a GA?

 

However the incident reporting system is much the same..

 

Arthur.

 

 

[Guest Macnoz]

Hi J430,

 

i see a pm from you but each time I try to open it IE closes -- maybe a work firewall or something i dont know.

 

I will try it at home tonight. I could not / did not get registration number.

 

I think I have met you at YCAB with a VH reg Jab?

 

If i am right then we have a mutual friend with a technicial lean and an "interesting" bi plane. If you know who I mean have a chat with him as he was at the bowser with me when we saw this and got in his car and drove over to assist.

 

 

[Guest Macnoz]

Nev – relax no shooting a coming.

 

I am not accessing the seriousness or otherwise of the incident.

 

But I would question your assertion that it is the responsibility of anyone witnessing an “accident” to report it to the responsible authority.

 

In such case the authorities would be bombarded by multiple and no doubt conflicting reports. In may case it would be useless -- no registration number etc observed!

 

I know the PIC has ultimate responsibility to report etc.

 

I would like to see discussion around who else has such accountability particularly as alluded to under section 4.01 of the (RAA) ops manual.

 

I suppose it all gets even more complicated depending on status of aerodrome, field ownership, club membership, craft ownership etc etc

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

The following will be a bit stark but needs saying – again – and I do not believe is off-topic.

 

The Ops Manual 4.01 et al requirements are a nonsense, totally irresponsible to place in a control document, and potentially could be used as a platform for legal repercussions against quite innocent members!

 

I asked for years for those provisions to be removed and was totally ignored.

 

The provisions suggest a degree of control or responsibility that does not exist. In fact if you try and exercise them you can (and I have been even as a Pilot Examiner) slapped down for so doing by the powers that be.

 

It is one thing for someone like Farri who acted as a CFI of his own school, off his own private strip, that was entirely on his own property, to have absolute say on what goes on.

 

It is another thing for an active club, operating club owned aircraft, to have control over what their members do.

 

It is entirely another thing to suggest that because a handful of ultralights happen to be operating (entirely independent operations) then between them they should get together and appoint a ‘duty pilot’ and by implication could be interpreted as jointly negligent if they do not.

 

It is worse if you are CFI of a school at a busy airfield trying to get on with your own affairs, and your very presence gives you some kind of responsibility for the antics of any idiot that chooses to flop in over the fence.

 

As said – I believe it disgraceful to leave such twaddle in one of our control documents.

 

Tony

 

 

[facthunter]

Law.

 

Mac, I don't believe I'm asserting anything. I believe I am quoting the LAW. We are bound by the CAR's. Nev

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I don't think it is up to individuals to assess the significance of an incident/accident. It is a requirement for ANY PERSON becoming aware of a situation involving the safety of an aircraft to report the matter to the responsible authority.

I don't think "ANY PERSON" is the case Nev. The AIP's list "responsible persons" for reporting aviation incidents as follows:

 

a. a crew member of the aircraft concerned;

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. the owner or operator of the aircraft;

 

c. a person performing an air traffic control service in relation to the aircraft;

 

 

 

d. a person performing a dedicated aerodrome rescue or firefighting service in relation to the aircraft;

 

 

 

 

e. a person who:

 

(1) is licensed as an aircraft maintenance engineer under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, and

 

 

 

 

 

(2) does any work in relation to the aircraft;

 

 

 

 

 

f. a member of the ground handling crew in relation to the aircraft;

 

 

g. a member of the staff of the CASA; and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h. the operator of an aerodrome.

 

 

 

It also goes on to say that "a responsible person is not required to report if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe another responsible person has reported the occurrence".

 

 

 

 

 

Having said all of this the AIPs further define an Immediately Reportable Matter as, amongst other things,:

 

 

the aircraft suffering serious damage, or the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the aircraft has suffered serious damage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and a Routine Reportable Matter as:

 

 

the aircraft suffering damage that compromises, or has the potential to compromise, the safety of the flight, but is not serious damage;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I wasn't there so I can't comment first hand but from what others have said in this thread it sounds to me that someone is required to report it by, as Nev says, LAW!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, my understanding (and I could be wrong) is that in these instances we are actually bound by the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. This falls outside of the CARs, CAOs, etc. but our obligations under this Act are detailed in the AIPs. For anyone who is interested refer to ENR 1.14 of the AIPs which can be found here -

 

 

 

http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/current/aip/enr/114_1-10.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Macnoz]

airsick

 

i was just copying and pasting same abstract and now I've double wasted my work and recreational time!!

 

 

[facthunter]

thanks.

 

Airsick, thanks for that but it lists "responsible" persons, and it doesn't read quite like I remember. Essentially, the list indicated there, could be "chased up" (theoretically) if an incident/accident happened and the authority found out that it wasn't reported. I still think that it goes something like " ANY person , becoming aware of (occurrence .etc .affecting aircraft safety/ navigation etc .. shall report bla .. bla.. to the responsible authority. Obviously it is pretty general and not enforced (and could not be) easily.

 

The reference you quoted, does stipulate enough people to cover the operational situational.

 

The recording of machine damage and the repair in the airframe/ engine log books is a seperate issue and is also a requirement.

 

A lot of this gets back to the integrity of the entire system. The rules are there. (the less the better as far as I'm concerned, but we need some). If they are no good ,get rid of them, if they are needed, apply them, or where are we? Nev...

 

 

[Guest Macnoz]

Yes the bits on the runway preventing others take off roll would prob fall (no pun intended) under

 

REG 2.3 Immediately reportable matters (Act s 3)

 

 

 

 

All aircraft operations

 

(1)

 

For the purposes of the definition of immediately reportable matter in section 3 of the Act, the following investigable matters, in relation to an aircraft operation

 

(a)

 

subject to subregulation or a serious injury to:

 

(i)

 

a person on board the aircraft or in contact with the aircraft or anything attached to the aircraft or anything that has become detached from the aircraft;

 

So no debate it’s reportable by law.

 

But by WHOM

 

 

[Guest Macnoz]

Re TOSG post

 

well done tony

 

you read the mind behind my question.

 

If section 4.01 were to live we would be up the proverbial creek without propellor

 

 

[Guest airsick]

The Ops Manual 4.01 et al requirements are a nonsense, totally irresponsible to place in a control document, and potentially could be used as a platform for legal repercussions against quite innocent members!

I agree with you in general Tony but there are two that strike me a really wierd. The first one:

 

Where more than one recreational aircraft is ooperating from a flying field, other than a training field, a Duty Pilot shall be elected from those Pilot Certificate holders present. The Duty Pilot will have the authority to control and direct operations of recreational aircraft that are conducted in accordance with CAOs, CARs, CASRs or any relevant legislation as amended from time to time, this manual, and in accordance with the conditions set down by the owner of the field.

 

I fly from Canberra and operate in accordance with all these things but if some so called Duty Pilot comes along and tells me what to do, with all due respect I will choose to ignore him and go with instructions from the ATC guys sitting in the tower. No doubt this is being nitpicky but I have always found it amusing.

 

The second one I find interesting is this one:

 

When operating at a flying field that is not their home field pilots must report to the CFI or Duty Pilot prior to undertaking any operations, or further operations, from that field. Visiting pilots MUST ensure they are properly briefed on local requirements and conditions.

 

I find this one amusing. Generally flying from a non-home field means you would have a cross country endorsement, how else would you get there? To get this you have to meet the syllabus as described in the Ops Manual. So essentially they are saying that the syllabus to which you are trained does not adequately equip you to fly into aerodromes other than the one you normally fly from yet you are safe to do so anyway! Or am I missing something?

 

There are many other oddities in this section too.

 

As said – I believe it disgraceful to leave such twaddle in one of our control documents.

Me too.

 

Yeah yeah, I know. Some pilots without their cross country will fly from non-home fields having driven there. This is an exception but the rule applies to all, no exception is made for non cross country endorsement holders.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I The second one I find interesting is this one:

When operating at a flying field that is not their home field pilots must report to the CFI or Duty Pilot prior to undertaking any operations, or further operations, from that field. Visiting pilots MUST ensure they are properly briefed on local requirements and conditions.

 

I find this one amusing. Generally flying from a non-home field means you would have a cross country endorsement, how else would you get there? To get this you have to meet the syllabus as described in the Ops Manual. So essentially they are saying that the syllabus to which you are trained does not adequately equip you to fly into aerodromes other than the one you normally fly from yet you are safe to do so anyway! Or am I missing something?

I imagine that the local requirements and conditions is intended to cover things like which noise-sensitive neighbours houses to avoid overflying. Not sure how having an x-c endorsement would help with this (other than explaining the need for PPR where necessary required).

 

I would guess that this dates back to times when ultralights tended to be operated more from smaller & non-licensed airfields but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi John (Crezzi).

 

 

I understand your view point and it is not unreasonable at all the way you cast it. But it is potentially bloody lethal in general Ops terms!

 

 

Now let me spell all of this out to interested parties and I do so as an ex Board member who was privy to a very blunt address by a most experienced insurance agent in open address to the AUF Board.

 

 

This guy responded to questions on why our insurance premiums were going through the roof. He had a few answers and suggested that it would be increasingly tough to get any tail dragger insurance (these were in the days of the ‘Skyfox fiasco’ that really nothing was done about and most of it happened in GA schools anyway).

 

 

But his main point was that there were two impending court cases for damages that were being stalled as the insurance companies did not think they were going to win and had to save up the multi million dollar pay-out from insurance premiums collected.

 

 

One concerned a doctor who had been left as a paraplegic after crashing his own single seater. Now this guy was under training at the time, non pilot certified, evidently felt he was more than up to it, and without any authorisation or even knowledge of the school took his single seater for an illegal flight. He crashed it and critically injured himself!

 

 

Now this guy’s viewpoints of all these 'wonderful freedoms and get involved' abruptly changed – or were changed for him by his lawyers! It is all chums until it goes wrong!

 

 

So AUF, the club running the flying training school, the CFI, the instructor who was teaching him – and I guess the airfield dog that did not bark at an appropriate time, are all being conjointly sued and the insurance company thinks it is going to lose! Lawyers build in as big a responsibility chain as possible and you are bound to get someone with money or enough people with enough money!

 

 

We may live in Ga-Ga land so we would be advised to protect ourselves eh?

 

 

I most strongly object to anything in our control ordinance that persists in applying any form of responsibility, to any member, in any form, other than within the confines of an approved Flying Training Facility, or within any provisions that may from time to time obtain in Airworthiness, or other than compliance with CAOs, CARs and Airmanship.

 

 

I say this because we live within a mirage that when probed dissolves abruptly and retreats behind “we are an administrative function and the members are responsible for complying withâ€. Well enough I suppose although I have little time for anyone lacking some guts!

 

 

But I do strongly object to that responsibility being unreasonably broadened into a sub clause of a document that maybe few will read thoroughly, not know the import of – and I object most strongly when that document is withheld from members unless they are prepared to pay for it unless they have a computer! If RAAus wishes to pursue this rabid member catchment scenario and so look successful then be careful that you do not be seen to be obviously wanting in the member support area!!! Perhaps you should have done the sums on the per capita overhead of membership before you blindly went into doing it?

 

 

If 4.0 has yet again been transferred into the Ops Manual Edition #6 then I believe there is just cause for us to ask what the hell our controllers think they are doing – and why!

 

 

In conclusion – Crezzi (John) this situation goes back right to our beginnings. It seems apparent that AUF was intended to be set up on regional control lines, clubs etc. It quickly became apparent that AUF was more attuned to GA than the GFA Region/club based system and central control almost immediately focussed in Canberra leaving the individual member independent and responsible for compliance with the ordinance.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Hi John (Crezzi).I understand your view point and it is not unreasonable at all the way you cast it.

Ditto with yours Tony.

 

With my UK background a lot of microlight training was done from from small private airfields operated solely by the school and the CFI was very much in charge. In this scenario, someone who didn't wander over to say hello / apologise for any inadvertent infringements / enquire about any local noise-sensitive areas & the possibility of a cuppa etc wouldn't be welcomed again. It wasn't mandated anywhere AFAIK but a simple common curtesy. t

 

I can honestly say that it never even occured to me that by giving advice, somebody might be making themself liable. For me flying is pretty much the ultimate in taking personal responsibility for my actions & my earlier post was written with this mindset.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest airsick]

If 4.0 has yet again been transferred into the Ops Manual Edition #6 then I believe there is just cause for us to ask what the hell our controllers think they are doing – and why!

For the record, the quotes I posted above are from the yet to be released version. It is a copy of the PDF I got from the RA-Aus website before it was taken down.

 

 

[Yenn]

I mentioned the section 4 requirements, not so long ago and from my reading then it appeared that very few people are aware of it.

 

I am certain that it is not complied with at most strips and wouldn't mind betting that only about 10% of RAAus members know of it.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

and a Routine Reportable Matter as:the aircraft suffering damage that compromises, or has the potential to compromise, the safety of the flight, but is not serious damage;

In relation to the thread starter incident, do I read into "compromise the safety of the flight" as meaning it is no longer a reportable incident? - the aircraft has landed and is no longer flying.

 

.

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

I have an idea >>> 6am Sunday morning ring Lee on the RAA mobile number and get the details of who you need to report to when you arrive at airfield "X".

 

No duty officer at airport "X" ? Then get permission from Lee to operate at airport "X"

 

Lets see how long that lasts ! My guess one weekend and then the mobile wouldnt get switched on till midday !

 

 

[spacesage]

Having had experience with this recently, I know that the RA Aus Ops Manual states that the incidents or accidents should be reported if there is any physical damage to any person or property, or potential for damage to said persons or property.

 

The responsible person for reporting this are the PIC, Hirer and\or Owner of the aircraft. Both if there is a hirer and an owner.

 

Maintenance logs are to be included

 

Any accident causing injury or death is to be immediately reported

 

Any accident causing damage to property or aircraft are to be reported with 48 hours of the time of occurence.

 

I think pretty Im accurate here, if anyone can pull the actually text. (Im at work and dont have my Ops Manual handy, funny that)

 

 

[poteroo]

At Risk of Becoming 'the officious bystander'

 

The 'officious bystander' was the title of a legal opinion column in a major news publication, many years ago, written by a noted QC. It's theme was the risks of becoming involved in matters which did not directly include yourself.

 

AIP's specify who is a responsible person, and it clearly isn't a visitor to an airfield who has no tangible connection with the aircraft or organisations operating them. No matter how we rank in the aviation hierachy - it's not within our direct remit to be reporting matters of operational nature, to anyone, anywhere.

 

However, all of us have a duty-of-care to our fellow citizens which is enshrined in common law. And the more learned, skilled,or ranked you happen to be - so, it seems, your duty-of-care is perceived to be proportionately greater.

 

As a CFI or PE, you would be expected, by any prudent persons' interpretation of duty-of-care, to do something about dangerous operational situations. Now this might simply involve wandering over and having a chat to someone - and that's the end of the matter. But, aviator egos being larger than earthlings', you run the risk of verbal or even physical assault. In a clear case of breaching CASA and RAA Regulations, you simply advise the recalcitrant that you will be filing an official complaint on the matter - and do it. If it's a matter of airmanship - then the best we can do is ensure we use these incidents as examples in our training. The word soon gets about as to 'who' the subject pilot is/was.

 

Are we becoming an officious bystander if we do this? I don't believe so. The aviation community expects senior members to set and uphold standards, and we let them down if we don't. These standards involve much more than the bare bones of aviation law - they involve that wonderfully descriptive term...airmanship. Being 'legal' is not necessarily being an 'airman', and we seniors need to teach airmanship as much, maybe more, than the regs.

 

happy days,