facthunter Posted January 3 Posted January 3 If you hadn't noticed RAAus is coming under scrutiny, for safety. This could/will have far reaching consequences for the movement. Nev
turboplanner Posted January 3 Posted January 3 1 minute ago, facthunter said: If you hadn't noticed RAAus is coming under scrutiny, for safety. This could/will have far reaching consequences for the movement. Nev Did you get to see the figures? For a few years we were on about 10 - 12 per year, they dropped during Covid and we would expect a few extras in 2024 caused by lack of recency. There may also be something else going on based on personalities from the social media I've read recently.
Deano747 Posted January 3 Posted January 3 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-03/recreational-plane-hobby-aviation-training-regulations-atsb/104692536 "Twenty-seven people died in 20 light aircraft crashes in 2024, including those flying in home-built planes, crop dusters, and helicopters."
facthunter Posted January 3 Author Posted January 3 We may need to support our organisations efforts. I'm sure RAAUs and Minimum Owner built Planes etc as a concept has many enemies. It was always there ready to erupt at a convenient time . I'm not judging RAAus. More making known the heat is on and we should be prepared. Nev 1
facthunter Posted January 3 Author Posted January 3 (edited) ATSB investigating everything will cost extra money It's constrained by limited funding. Do RAAus members want to fund that? Nev Edited January 3 by facthunter spelling 1
BurnieM Posted January 3 Posted January 3 We are already funding it with our taxes. The real question is are ATSB investigations occurring were they should be regardless of aircraft registration? 3 5
turboplanner Posted January 3 Posted January 3 14 minutes ago, Deano747 said: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-03/recreational-plane-hobby-aviation-training-regulations-atsb/104692536 "Twenty-seven people died in 20 light aircraft crashes in 2024, including those flying in home-built planes, crop dusters, and helicopters." I hate to tell the people involved in this push that cropdusters and helicopters are not in our sphere, and the story throws a lot of doubt about whether GA Light aircraft have been lumped in as well. I'm surprised at what Lorraine has said, but she appears to be talking about the RA+GA+helicopter total being 27. That doesn't leave much space or RA alone, so RA may well be right down on the expected level AND NOT A CRISIS to go off half cocked on. Looks like Mick Monck has an agenda to get ATSB to investigate all RA accidents; the questions are whether all RA people could afford that, what is going on that has led to this, and how statistics for Crop Dusters, Helicopters and perhaps GA are relative to self-administrating recreational aviation. "which potentially led to inexperienced people getting behind the controls." This would be of concern to all RA pilots as well as the GA pilots using the same airspace. 1
turboplanner Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Just now, BurnieM said: We are already funding it with our taxes. The real question is are ATSB investigations occurring were they should be regardless of aircraft registration? Yes, RA accidents with just a few exceptions are investigated by Police with technical assistance of RAA and the evidence provided to the State Coroner. 1
turboplanner Posted January 3 Posted January 3 From the map I get the following: Paragliders (SAFA) 3 Gliders (GFA) 2 Helicopters (GA) 5 Crop Spray (GA) 3 GA 8 (Total GA 16) RA (RAA) 6 If that's Jan - Dec 2024 then that looks to me to be a good year for RA, not a bad year. If people are talking publicly about RA then lumping in all the other statistics is misleading to say the least. 2 3
onetrack Posted January 3 Posted January 3 I've already given the ABC journalist who co-wrote that article, a good serve over the quality of the article. It's been modified/edited several times since it first appeared this morning. First off they wrote that Keith Link was flying a Piper, and I had to remind them that VH-UVS was actually a Cessna. They state that aviation fatalities for 2024 were 27 (with no breakdown) - and took out the part that originally stated the fatalities were down from 34 in 2023. I gave the journo a serve over failing to address the complexity behind the reasons for aircraft crashes, and pointed out that the ATSB doesn't have unlimited numbers of crash investigator staff, and unlimited funding. I'm surprised that Lorraine MacGillivray would make a statement that seems to indicate that young people and total inexperience are the major reason for aircraft crashes, and seems to indicate this is leading to an increase in crashes. I pointed out that it's largely older people flying aircraft, because they're the ones normally with accumulated money that enables them to indulge in aviation. I also pointed out the fact that no-one has yet found a way to stop pilots from having medical events that can easily fly under the doctors radar. And I also detest the way the article conflates recreational flying with commercial flying, mustering and other dangerous air work. All in all, a pretty badly done article, and I expected better from the ABC. 7 2
turboplanner Posted January 3 Posted January 3 9 minutes ago, onetrack said: I've already given the ABC journalist who co-wrote that article, a good serve over the quality of the article. It's been modified/edited several times since it first appeared this morning. First off they wrote that Keith Link was flying a Piper, and I had to remind them that VH-UVS was actually a Cessna. They state that aviation fatalities for 2024 were 27 (with no breakdown) - and took out the part that originally stated the fatalities were down from 34 in 2023. Good on you, it depends on who gave them that information and what the agenda was. All RA owners should be on red alert; when the pilots, students, instructors, and flying facilities and service industry can produce a result like this they deserve to be congratulated. 1 4
Thruster88 Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Young pilots were involved in zero fatal accidents in RAAus aircraft last year. The ABC story was mostly crap. 2 2
facthunter Posted January 3 Author Posted January 3 Full of Fluff as has already been noted but it's the perception that counts. Few bother with the details. Maybe One track will be the ABCs proof reader. . Cost and difficulty doesn't ALLOW inexperienced pilots in the sky Its a performance based result'. Not flying very often may but most people realise that and rectify it as needed or just fly local. Nev 2 1
djpacro Posted January 4 Posted January 4 21 hours ago, onetrack said: .... I'm surprised that Lorraine MacGillivray would make a statement that seems to indicate that young people and total inexperience are the major reason for aircraft crashes, and seems to indicate this is leading to an increase in crashes. ... Doesn't indicate that to me. May be because she knew some of the young people killed recently. Maybe because I have read statements she has made in total rather than edited by a journalist. And I am familiar with the business she is promoting. RAA is developing their training program further as are some GA flight schools. The CASA Part 61 MOS is quite sensible but it is not a syllabus. I was recently disappointed to hear of one flight school where most of their instructors admitted to ignoring most of the Part 61 MOS elements about stall training - teaching to pass a test rather than teach to demonstrate competency per the MOS. Seems to me a direct correlation between the typical flight training syllabus and the single biggest cause of fatal GA accidents. 3 1 1
Ian Posted January 4 Posted January 4 It's dumb having a distinction between GA and RAAus. They're all planes and the skills required are virtually identical. It purely bureaucratic nonsense. Either farm out General Aviation in it's entirety or kill off RAAus. ATSB should investigate all accidents to some degree to identify likely causes. The current state allow innuendo and game playing to run rampant. 2 1 1 2
Hwansey Posted January 4 Posted January 4 I disagree Ian. My own take is that the RAAus umbrella of distinction protects us from a level of bureaucracy that is not relevant to the operation of aircraft on a purely recreational basis. What might make me less popular is my opinion that the encroachment of Ra into GA is not appropriate. (Eg controlled airspace) I was fortunate enough to have spent my entire working life as a professional aviator and I would respectfully suggest that those who are of the opinion that the ATSB should be investigating RA registered accidents should be careful of what they wish for. 5 3 1
BurnieM Posted January 4 Posted January 4 At Shellharbour we have GA, RA, jump planes and scheduled services in uncontrolled airspace. ie it is all intermingled as is risk and learnings. If ATSB is not going to invesigate an incident we should a least get a 1 pager on why. As they seem to decide very quickly I see no reason why this reason paper could not be published within 30 days. 1
facthunter Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 Expect to PAY more then.. That's the reality. Nev 1
BurnieM Posted January 4 Posted January 4 We are already paying for it. ATSB produce internal documentation including on incidents they do not investigate. I am asking that this be put in the public arena and if the justifications do not stand up then negative public comment. 1
facthunter Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 Of course there will be extra costs. Remote location etc and no data to go on often no witnesses. Aero's and cropdusting are similarly affected Funding is LIMITED and the priorities are made out of necessity. Nev 1
BurnieM Posted January 5 Posted January 5 Agreed, if more investigations occur then the cost will go up. Currently they are not travelling to incident sites and only doing (very) limited information gathering before deciding not to investigate. I am suggesting, for now, that the ATSB publicaly explain why they are not performing many investigations. I suspect that some of their reasoning is less than robust. 2
BrendAn Posted January 5 Posted January 5 what the government waste every day would cover plenty of atsb investigations. priorities are out of wack in this country. 1
facthunter Posted January 5 Author Posted January 5 It's always been, "We have LIMITED funding.".. How much more robust do you need?. The first thing they would say is User pays If YOU want it that much. You'd be about as popular as a Pork chop in a Synagogue if you helped get that in. Nev 1
turboplanner Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Ian said: It's dumb having a distinction between GA and RAAus. They're all planes and the skills required are virtually identical. It purely bureaucratic nonsense. Either farm out General Aviation in it's entirety or kill off RAAus. ATSB should investigate all accidents to some degree to identify likely causes. The current state allow innuendo and game playing to run rampant. Rough figures; the cost of a new GA trainer/cross country is $500,000 to $1.2 mil. RA new $50,000 t0 $250,000 We need the different standard if the average person is to be able to afford to fly or hire relatively new AC. RA should be viewed as other sporting activities are; the State police investigate the accident and provide the evidence to the State Coroner. For non fatal accidents, RA people have to get themselves into gear and catch up with other hi risk sports which self-administer. 2 1
BrendAn Posted January 5 Posted January 5 18 minutes ago, facthunter said: It's always been, "We have LIMITED funding.".. How much more robust do you need?. The first thing they would say is User pays If YOU want it that much. You'd be about as popular as a Pork chop in a Synagogue if you helped get that in. Nev pork chops would be popular if they tried them
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