IDIOTS....

[Barefootpilot]

You can join a base leg in the circuit if you read the AIP http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/current/aip/enr/1_1_1-116.pdf Part 64.2

 

It states "should" not "must" so you can join the circuit how ever you want.

 

 

[facthunter]

Clarification.

 

E McP. The key to my approach is to process it with the RAAus FIRST. IF that is ineffective, and it is particularly important, then you go further. Talking to CASA "off the record", might seem OK. But it compromises THAT individual if something subsequently happens and it hasn't been acted upon in the first instance. CASA in australia has no duty to aid aviation, unlike the FAA in the states. The current process involves points and fines, almost automatically. It is not up to individual "NICE GUYS", (and there will be some), and I'm not saying that there has not been some attempt to change the perception of the relationship. They were going to fine a friend of mine over 1000 dollars for failing to advise them apparently, of a medical procedure that would have prevented him from exercising the priveleges of his licence. quite recently, and that is what will happen. ( It is not a matter of whether you FLY or not).

 

I don't want to appear anti-CASA per se, but you should be realistic (you, being anybody) about HOW the system works.

 

E Mc P. , I share your concerns about ALL of the aspects of RAAus & GA safety that you have listed , and I am sure that IF we don't do better our wings will be clipped. This forum helps ,I believe, in no small way . Nev..

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I really don't think that one would stand up in court I'm afraid Adam.

 

For the record, I don't think anyone here should test this without further clarification through legal counsel and or contacting CASA.

 

You can join a base leg in the circuit if you read the AIP http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/current/aip/enr/1_1_1-116.pdf Part 64.2 It states "should" not "must" so you can join the circuit how ever you want.

[Barefootpilot]

Came from the mouth of a CASA FOI but then again that doesn't mean everyone in CASA would read it that way.

 

 

[facthunter]

Tell that to the judge.

 

The final test is how would it look if tested in court. This is of no concern to you if you have no assets or money. Nev..

 

 

[Guest airsick]

This is very similar to the 'grey letter law' issues surrounding standards. There was a case a while back where a lady broke her ankle while stepping off a gutter in a car park. The courts ruled that while the standards defining the recommended height, etc. of a roadside gutter were not mandatory, if they were followed they would go some way to preventing an injury. The car park owner had elected to go against the conventional wisdom by not following the standard and this was found to be a contributing factor in the injury rendering them liable for damages.

 

I would imagine the same logic would apply here. You might be able to join the circuit some other way (bear in mind I am not saying you can!) but if there is some sort of incident and it is found that your non standard joining method was found to be a contributing factor then I am almost positive that you would be held responsible.

 

PS. Don't take my word for it. Like Brent said, get some legal advice before 'doing what you want'.

 

 

[farri]

I would like to see a whole heap of things, but more regulation probably isn't one of them.Each of us brings our own qualifications, experience and beliefs to RAAus and my hobby horse is safety management systems, reporting, no-blame accident investigations and open discussion of mistakes to facilitate learning.

 

There is an emerging trend towards the prosecution of pilots following an accident (Yogyakarta for one and there was one in NZ in the last few years) that makes openess and full investigation harder to achieve. There is also a real fear of authority in "private" aviation (GA and RAAus) and good outcomes are being lost because people are scared of admitting mistakes.

 

RAAus has become enough like GA already but I will ask you this - do you think RAAus will be allowed to continue expanding upwards (in weight and capability) and outwards (in membership) without more controls?

 

We are all being careful about public perceptions and political fallout and we are constantly being told that the organisation and its liberties are under threat. But what will the political fallout be when there is a series of accidents and it is shown RAAus didn't do all that it could?

Good onya Elk,Pretty close to the mark.:thumb_up:

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

RAAus has become enough like GA already but I will ask you this - do you think RAAus will be allowed to continue expanding upwards (in weight and capability) and outwards (in membership) without more controls?

Good question Elk McPherson, I wont comment because I got banned because of my involvement in a thread covering just this question :big_grin:

 

We are all being careful about public perceptions and political fallout and we are constantly being told that the organisation and its liberties are under threat. But what will the political fallout be when there is a series of accidents and it is shown RAAus didn't do all that it could?

IMHO, what more can RAAus do ? There are student training goals to be met, The RAAus mag runs great safety articles, Flight Safety Oz puts out a great 'safety' mag, There are literally thousands of books available covering 'safe' flying technic, and there are numerous internet forums that cover safe flying ... I'm a little mistified what it is you think RAAus can do more of ? (except make it more like GA)

 

I think it is up to the pilots themselves to fully utilize the resources that are available to them, plus some pilots just need to fly more often. The flying 'skill' if left unused, soon decays.

 

...as you say though, this could go to another thread.

 

 

[Yenn]

Where did this idea that you have to be established on a 5 mile final come from. That only applies to a straight in approach and is there to give anyone in the circuit advanced warning and allow time to sort out the traffic. Those in the circuit have right of way over those doing a straight in approach, but the 5 miles does allow an RPT to get in quickly if those in the circuit think they will give up their spot to a far more expensive plane to keep in the air.

 

As far as I can see most of the rules are descended from common sense in aviation, except of course those pertaining to security. I don't think there are many times when I am flying that I think I would like to do something which is illegal, just to make my life easier. i admit that there have been times when I would have liked to break some of the rules, such as no night flying in RAAus aircraft, but I can see the sense of them and try to limit my bravado.

 

 

[Mazda]

The 5 mile final is a hangover from the days when straight in approaches were not allowed at all, then through "consultation" it was decided they could be done at MBZs only, with multi-pilot airline crews only. So it was set up for airline aircraft. Then when the rules changed, the distance remained. The people making that decision were not aware that it was different overseas. It's just an oversight, nothing to do with a real safety requirement.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

High Plains Drifter wrote: "IMHO, what more can RAAus do ?"

 

A great deal can in fact be done HPD, the first step is to break the vicious circle that we are in and RAAus has to take the lead in this.

 

You cannot develop a sound safety culture unless you see where effort has to be specifically applied. That is not visible if you do not have the raw material of accident and incident reports to work with, this are able to read emerging trends. I am not bagging current RAAus with this one because the situation has taken time to become entrenched and attitudes harden up. Changing those attitudes is the work that requires doing.

 

There are two sides to this: We simply do not get sufficient accident and incident reports (we all know this) but is that the fault of members not reporting or RAAus not processing and publishing? If RAAus do not publish then members will not report because there is no perceived value in doing so. If members do not report then RAAus has nothing to publish. That is the vicious circle!

 

On the other hand I seriously doubt that RAAus has the resources (or perhaps will) to deal with the full box of dice which actually exists. Two reasons: There is simply not the staff (the area is tagged onto the Ops and Tech Manager's portfolios and those guys are grossly overworked as it is), then there is the public relations situation which is now significant.

 

In the latter area RAAus painted itself into a corner when it put the magazine on the newsstands. This created a major conflict of interests. On one hand the only valid reporting medium to the members is the magazine. On the other hand the magazine is now primarly about attracting new members (not the money making concern that it was originally put by the Board as) and you do not want it half full of accident reports - it is a bit counter productive.

 

This situation deteriorated further when RAAus made no response to repeated suggestions from several members that accident and incident reporting was via a loose leaf insert in the magazine that went only to members. But that probably takes us straight back to the resources issue to produce such a thing in the first place.

 

There should actually be no problem in doing this. Member copies are obviously segregated and so arranged that the members are the last to get the mag. anyway! This month I recieved the August edition of Pacific Flyer prior to the July issue of RAAus!

 

Oh yes HPD - there is so much that could be done.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

You cannot develop a sound safety culture unless you see where effort has to be specifically applied

Tony, I'm mystified just 'what' safety culture you are trying to develop here. It seems to me you would'nt be happy with anything less then the expensive GA 'safety' culture.

 

Remember that the main reason why the AUF/RAAus came into existance was GA cost too much money.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

HPD – you could not be more wrong – please read what I write, not what you think I am saying (or my motives for saying it)! The last thing I want to see is an over-regulated, authoritarian and expensive situation. I would like to see what this movement was originally set up for – mutual co-operation and from that we can have a very valid ‘safety culture’ attuned to our own needs.

 

 

Let me try and put this in simple context because it is the way I run TOSG and it works at least reasonably well.

 

 

As TOSG co-ordinator I am effectively a spider sitting in the middle of a web – a quite large web that I have now extended overseas. That web draws in a great deal of information. I receive that information because I am trusted. Not just trusted as an individual but trusted that I will turn that information around and send it back down the web for the benefit of every TOSG member and do so quite quickly.

 

 

I have been able to speed and broaden that process via the kindness of Ian extending the Thruster sub-forums (basically for TOSG’s benefit but any aircraft user group may have the same facility in their own forums if they ask for it) so I can turn information around now very quickly indeed including images.

 

 

That should be happening at RAAus level and could happen if RAAus had accepted Ian’s offer of their own self-moderated slice of these forums and had invited a small panel of honorary individuals to administer the flight safety reporting side to run it, along with a loose leaf hard copy insert into the magazine. Very cost effective and no significant burden on the paid staff.

 

 

The ‘safety culture’ we need is one where we are all participating to mutual benefit – the safety of the individual and the perceived competence of the control organisation to outside viewers. A lot of that is being able to read trends. Such trends could indicate what may be a flaw in an aircraft design that has to be monitored, or could be something in Operations that suggests there has to be revitalisation of activity in certain areas. It could (as Elk and others have stated) be the judged ability to run a major flying organisation.

 

 

Now let me give you a simple example of how an effective safety culture at our level can work.

 

 

Quite a few years ago, when relationships between the membership and AUF controllers were somewhat happier, members did report in and one of the key factors were that they were not just reporting major accidents, they were reporting incidents and small airworthiness flaws that came up.

 

 

One of those circumstances concerned Thrusters. One had a low end, full separation failure of a sternpost (that robs you of tailwheel steering totally and that is one thing you definitely need on a Thruster).

 

 

It could have been put down to one of those things on a particular aircraft – but it was reported and was then published. A few more readers thought ‘I have had one of those’ and also reported. Then there was an evident trend resulting in an AD requiring a 50 hour inspection of the area.

 

 

More instances were found, and corrected before drama (I had one myself). But there is no question that the reporting/publishing/AD/inspection procedure that came from it saved a lot of aircraft from thousands of dollars worth of damage. Fatality or even injury was not really an issue.

 

 

That HPD is the form of ‘safety culture’ that I am interested in. One where users (members) and controllers (RAAus) alike are working together effectively, for a greater good and stopping incidents and accidents before they happen.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

There have been a few posts in this long thread either for or against alerted/un-alerted see and avoid.

 

I thought this might be interesting in terms of providing some research basis to the assertions that are made in this area:

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/See_and_Avoid.pdf

 

The last sentence of the report is:

 

"The most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on

 

see-and-avoid in Australian airspace."

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I have been able to speed and broaden that process via the kindness of Ian extending the Thruster sub-forums (basically for TOSG’s benefit but any aircraft user group may have the same facility in their own forums if they ask for it) so I can turn information around now very quickly indeed including images. 

 

That should be happening at RAAus level and could happen if RAAus had accepted Ian’s offer of their own self-moderated slice of these forums and had invited a small panel of honorary individuals to administer the flight safety reporting side to run it, along with a loose leaf hard copy insert into the magazine. Very cost effective and no significant burden on the paid staff.

Errr, Tony, whats to stop pilots posting their aircraft problems, here, now ??? there are already dedicated aircraft sub groups in this Forum. Also, in some cases if the aircraft is factory built or a kit - there is a stand alone aircraft type specific forum.

 

Tony, it seems to me you just want a more bureaucratic approch to things ? ...that will cost pilots lotsa money.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

HPD – we are really not on the same page over this one apparently.

 

 

“Want a more bureaucratic approach� I thought that I had spelt that out that we can get on far more effectively by a co-operative approach – if people see the value of this rather than have it forced down their throats via regulation – and consequently more money?

 

 

There is nothing to stop pilots posting on these forums. But you imply primarily airworthiness related issues in a reporting sense. It is Operations that is the main killer and that embraces all types.

 

 

On top of that these forums of a bit more than 2000 strong are only a fifth of RAAus’ present membership. An effective safety culture has to embrace that there has to be some kind of organisation that allows ALL members to be informed.

 

 

Such a culture would flourish better if we were all working together (to save expense) rather than the expensive and inhibiting of freedom of regulation that will surely follow if we do not.

 

 

Please bear in mind that the former AUF were doing a reasonable job of getting this by the balls when abruptly the playing field became about ten times larger and nobody actually considered how it would work in practice before we were sent down that track.

 

 

I suppose it is a bit like taking a Go-Kart club that all can enjoy cheaply and affordably and transforming it into a pseudo Formula One outfit with highly tuned V8 engines etc. The Go Kart club can go off and do it somewhere else (pity they lost their home track they paid for, but that is evolution). But what is far sadder is not anticipating nor making provision for what the V8s would bring.

 

 

In our case flight safety has been an obvious casualty.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Tony, Ill frame my response slightly differently -

 

...That should be happening at RAAus level and could happen if RAAus had accepted Ian’s offer of their own self-moderated slice of these forums...

Errr, Tony, whats to stop pilots posting their aircraft problems, here, now ??? there are already dedicated aircraft sub groups in this Forum.

 

a small panel of honorary individuals to administer the flight safety reporting side to run it

???

 

I just had a look at the latest RAAus mag, July 2008,

 

- page 50, Accident and incident reports - lists 10 reports.

 

- page 31 - John Brandons excelent safety article, goes six pages.

 

- page 9 - Chris Kiehn, tech mngr, covers - fuels, BRS and ELT, Maintainer manual, Crankshaft failures, Propellor pitchs and ANs.

 

...and we have Mick Poole, Lee Ungermann, and John Gardon all getting out the safety message :thumb_up: ... and hello; page 4, a call for Volunteers to assist the RAAus office - extract; Our organisation was built on volunteers and your time and service to RA-Aus is appreciated

 

Tony, I think we have thread drifted here a bit, so perhaps we take this over to the 'election' thread :big_grin:

 

 

[Guest brentc]

That is Chris, the FORMER technical manager and Mick Poole CARETAKER Ops manager. If RA-Aus paid higher salaries for these positions they might be able to attract someone that wants to stay in the position and not want to move elsewhere. There hasn't been a good run on people leaving, not only from the Technical Position, but also the Ops Manager role. It is simply NOT enough money for someone to live and work in Canberra. I can get around $70k in Melbourne merely driving a forklift in a factory these days and that's not the nation's capital city!

 

I know of people that would love to take on these positions and would do it well bringing both professionalism and experience to the role, however RA-Aus isn't flexible on location and salary. This is not contributing to safety and culture as far as I can devise. How about employing someone who is a LAME as the technical manager for example and take the organisation to the next level? Someone ex-CASA like Middo, or ATSB for eample? As far as I know there's more than enough in the kitty to pay higher salaries to attract the right kind of candidate.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Errr, Tony, whats to stop pilots posting their aircraft problems, here, now ???

Nothing, except the individuals.

 

It could have been put down to one of those things on a particular aircraft – but it was reported and was then published. A few more readers thought ‘I have had one of those’ and also reported.

Even when there was a "somewhat happier" relationship between the RAA (or AUF) people were clearly not reporting faults otherwise those thinking "I have had one of those" would have reported it earlier.

 

The culture starts with us. Share your knowledge. Just because the RAA doesn't directly provide a forum for it it doesn't mean your hands are tied. As HPD says, do it here. Do it at your local club. Do it at the flying school. Do it amongst your flying buddies. Keep in touch with your aircraft manufacturer/dealer.

 

Safety is our responsibility. The RAA can help us foster a safer culture but while ever we are sitting here doing nothing but whinging we are equally to blame.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Some responses:

 

 

HPD. Enough of this – YOU tell US what you feel would be a proactive ‘safety culture’ in an honorary organisation – because that is what we are, due to limited resources – but we have to sustain peer ideals or be found wanting – maybe too wanting!

 

 

I reject your quoted platitudes about what is in the magazine. We need a change in thinking that itself is self-sustaining and this must come from the member base who have cause to believe it is worthwhile. In turn that must come from RAAus who give the members cause to believe it is worthwhile! Quacking about what should be done can make little impact on what is done.

 

 

I deeply regret your attempt to turn my words and blunt them into some form of ‘political’ viewpoint!!!!!

 

 

Brentc Good post. But I feel too much reliance is being placed on single managers and upping the ‘quality’ is not the issue – there is only so much one person can do and I believe the managers have an undue strain placed upon them with their normal working lives let alone anything else. The burden has to be more logically distributed.

 

 

Airsick. Another proactive post. You are correct – we were never getting ALL the problems but we were getting a damn sight more than we seem to see now. Plus, no matter how good these forums are, there has to be some central point for the movement in reporting and distribution. RAAus has only been too keen to diminish these forums (quite correctly) as ‘unrepresentative’. You cannot build responsible safety reporting on that base. So it has to start from the top.

 

 

T.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Moderator, I wonder if we can get the RAAus subject into its own thread please :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Personally I think this thread has run its' course and should be

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Ditto Brent

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Closed it is.

 

I think it covered the original subject pretty thoroughly.

 

If you want to start a new discussion, feel free.

 

HPD - why don't you start it off with what you feel our organisation needs to do about safety?