nomadpete

Now this is really interesting. A bit tedious at first and rather long to listen to in this age of sound bite news, but....... I'll be thinking about it next time I fly someplace in a big metal tube. Luckily Australia is not important enough for the real terryists to do much damage to us. And there I was, just worrying about the cost of ADS-B. The lack of security of the system is appalling. At work we are constantly doing risk assessments, seems none of the aviation safety bureaucrats considered the risks. And now we are stuck with it world wide.

I'm not sure but I suspect that "Merry" does not always equal "gay". Anyway, global warming should cheer up all those drab, greyed out depressed poms.

So, Bandit, please tell me how come a psych in training has to become an expert in advanced statistics (in order to get the degree). My better half has started to be discouraged by the training process. I don't see how statistical analysis can give much comfort to a person who may be suffering from the human condition...

OME said: Does anyone know if the RAAus has in place a Quality Management System that follows the relevant Australian Standard for QM Systems (AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008)? Quality? Management? Standards? RAAus ???

David, Our long haul transmission lines ( they are really just big nav aids, mounted on the iron giants) are 275 Kv, 330Kv, and we now are installing our first Half a Megavolt transmission lines. that's 500Kv. There also quite a lot of 132Kv stuff. They all look much the same. Really though, the actual operating voltage is hardly relevent as far as safety goes. We have a saying in the industry: "One flash and you're ash". The main thing for pilots to note about the HV transmission lines is the fact that the top pair of wires are much harder to see because they are much thinner than the main conductors. Generally there are six main conductors carrying the power. These top wires are overhead earth wires provided to catch the worst of the lightning strikes. Anyway, the transmission lines are, as you said, supported by large structures which are easily seen, and generally marked on our maps. The SWER arrester cable is the one that worries us most. All aerial cabling is pretty heavy cable - I think anything tough enough to cut it would also be pretty heavy to carry around on your A/C PeterT

My posts above are all related to the type of safety culture that develops (human factors). Someone recently commented that other operators around him are behaving predictably and safely for 99% of the time. Before accepting that as being OK, work that statistic out: If he has flown 500 hours, then one percent of that time is five hours. Did he realise that he was accepting five hours of operating in highly hazardous situations? The odds start to stack up against us. Risk minimisation requires all of us to be ever vigilant for those brief hazardous moments. They erode our safety margins. And to do our bit to foster the right culture at our clubs. Incidentally it has been nearly 20 years since I first learnt to glide, and nowadays nobody would consider turning the radio off. Back then the radio was not used much. Even now a radio is only be there to assist our situational awareness, but never the less it is vital when things get busy. Our gliding strip is not used by other aircraft, but there can be a lot of activity at times. Back in my first solo hours I got a reprimand (& deserved it) for thermalling on the dead side of the circuit area - even though all our gliders and tug were accounted for on the ground, and there was no sign of other aircraft passing through the area. So that led me to believe that thermalling anywhere near the circuit would be firmly stopped by any gliding club. This culture has not changed at our gliding club and I would hope that any observed instances would be reported at least to the CFI of the gliding club concerned. It's hard enough staying out of the way of people making honest mistakes without having to watch out for those deliberately doing the wrong thing. I am amazed to see the many creative ways that pilots do a circuit. No matter whether they are RPT, Chopper, GA, Recreational or glider. I know I'm biassed, but I feel that of all them, the gliders are generally most predictable in circuit because once there, they are committed to their landing. No option to go around if it doesn't look quite right on final. Anyway, the first post on this thread was all about gliders having a bad record for mid air collissions- generally during competitions. Not a hazard to noisy aeroplanes. Our biggest aviation safety blind spot is the same as the one that motorists suffer - "It couldn't happen to me - I know what I'm doing"

OK, you've dragged me back into the dialogue to justify my comment. How about NOWADAYS ? I confess when I started out gliding, my instructors first words once we were airborne were "Turn that bl**dy thing off - the chatter annoys me". So the radio went off. But he still didn't let me consider taking a thermal once we were close to the circuit. Maybe other clubs have a different culture. There will always be the occassional cowboy (or cowgirl?) in any kind of aircraft and it is up to each of us to have a word with them when we see them doing something silly. NOWADAYS we don't let thermalling happen in the circuit, and discourage it anywhere close to the circuit.

Sapphire, Are you picking on my spelling, or my expectations?

Then you land, of course. You already have a suitable landing area selected if you drop to 1000 feet. Alternatively you could get a RAAus license and a noisy aeroplane

I would be suprised if thermalling on downwind would be a common thing - I know that at our club it will bring an immediate "counselling" by the CFI or anyone who saw it. Besides, what was a RFD pilot doing in circuit that close to the strip? Gliders are pretty close to the strip when on downwind. Anyway, although this is directly relatable to "Accidents and Incidents", all this really belongs on the "Gliding" forum, doesn't it? Back where only gliding folk will see it ;-)

Thanks, DJP, for helping bridge the gap between gliding and noisy aircraft. In my opinion, there is a serious (unaddressed) risk associated with the present tendency for each camp to deny the existence of the other. For instance, I have had trouble getting anyone to seriously listen at a local gliding club when I tried to raise the issue of a popular landmark which is well known the gliding fraternity (sometimes get a good thermal there) but nobody was aware that it was also the start point for ILS practice at another local air port. Think of it - gliders concentrating on their thermal, passing through the very same air at 4000 feet, as a big, fast twin is starting his ILS approach (his head under the hood). Compound that with the ILS guy would be on his airport frequency and the glider on the Unicom frequency. It makes the hair stand up on the back of my head just thinking about it. If you think that an ultralight is a bit hard to see, try looking for a glider - unless you catch them at a certain point of a turn they are invisible. And gliders rarely are even aware of an Area frequency although they are very often over 5000 feet. PeterT

Its gonna get a bit crowded out on that there porch. Move over and make room for me.

Its nice to see a happy ending on this thread. Thanks for reporting a "non accident". It doesn't have to be an accident or incident to offer a lesson in safety. We still can learn from this example.

Congratulations gents. It is great to see such enthusiasm. We surely need that! You are welcomed into your new (and no doubt challenging) positions and assured of our support. Peter T

Say, Ian, Is it too early to close this thread? After all, the advertised positions available at RAAus have been filled. Or are we hoping that one or two more might yet be advertised?

OK. Thanks for the pic. I know of one local GR582 which has a leaky tank, too - they are a removable type in the leading edge of the wing. Yours appears to be exactly the same tank arrangement as my GA-912. Several points: 1. Your wing seems to have a alloy skin on the top that goes past from the root rib, to at least the second rib (mine only has a top skin over the fuel tank - from the root rib to the first rib in. 2. Your wing does not have a metal skin on the bottom of the wing. Mine does. But then that must be a difference between GR wing vs GA ? I noted that apart from the pinholes that had developed in the sides of my tanks, they both had evidence of attempted repairs to the fuel drain fittings and some of the points where the fuel tubes entered the tank. I would suspect that there was never any semkit around the interface between the alloy tube and the f'glass tank. Nor around the fuel drain threaded fitting embedded in the bottom of the tank. Bound to eventually let go and weep. The insides of the tanks also had signs of resin lifting where things had been glassed in, and disturbingly there were flakes drifting around loose in the bottom of the tanks. The only way to fix it properly is to take the offending tank out. Make sure you do a liquid pressure test overnight before putting it all back together.

webbm said "An RA-Aus Board meeting is today, so I look forward to hearing the outcomes of that meeting, which would be a good indication of the effectiveness of the General Meeting." Well, maybe things are improving - if we "hear" any (real) communication from the board/exec about their steps they are now taking to pur proper processes and behaviour in place. But so far I don't share the enthusiasm of some. It seems that our Board were still playing secretive games as mentioned by Admin:- " "unofficial" Committee meetings were held just prior to the meeting and 3 Committee Members were purposely precluded..." so I, for one, don't see any liklihood of the necessary changes actually coming to pass. For my money, that one act has shown that our Board intend to do 'business as usual'.

That is indeed a lot of people involved in the high turnover of committee and office bearers. But has it been too many? Keep your coloured pen ready for next week. There just might be some more changes occurring for one reason or another.

A good point, FT, So it will be up to the members present to be aware of the possibility that the exec may be the only ones trying to turn a normal, constitutional meeting into some sort of angry disruptive dispute. The people that I know are heading to the ACT are level headed and unlikely to fall for any of that rot, should it happen. I would dearly like to be there myself but I have complete trust in the integrity of my proxy, and have accordingly contributed to their expenses. Thank you gents, (you know who you are).

Which one is that?

John McK, I applaud your 'pet project' and hope it progresses soon. Sorry if I have made any silly statements. I don't think Maj was serious about the 'class action'. I wished to raise the importance of providing a useful learning that should be shared after a incident. My post purely intended to improve our flying safety through allowing us to understand the sequence of a pilot's decisions have led to an incident (combined with the causal events).

John, with respect I wish to differ on the importance of the subject of "pilot error" in aircraft accidents and incidents. In EVERY incident there is a safety case worthy of bringing to the attention of ALL pilots. As you mention, and I have no reason to disagree on this, a majority of accidents are not related to a aircraft frailty that needs to be advised to us. The present process works for that eventuality. We do need constant reminding of the human factors and decision making issues though. It should not be necessary to "read between the lines" as you put it.

I would hope that it would be possible for RAAus to do something a little more helpful than the present vague notes in the Magazine. The Air Safety Digest used to present a "no blame" overview of incidents without taking on the whole liability problem of making judgements. We just want the basic story of the critical events and decisions that may have led up to a incident. Surely that is possible? With the present RAAus system they don't even reproduce the information that I have sent in to them in my report of an incident.

I find prunes help self regulation. They keep me regular.

Maj, I echo your concern. There is nothing to be gained by reporting an incident to RAAus unless they can help us learn from it. The present process in totally useless. Some time ago, I wrote to the Tech Manager and asked if it would be possible for RAAus to recommend a lab that could do fuel analysis. I received no answer. My reasoning was spurred by the failure of me fuel tanks. However, I also mentioned the need to find out why engine failures were occurring without any obvious mechanical cause. My particular worry was about finding out if my mogas was contaminated by ethanol, but simply knowing that there was nothing wrong with a sample of fuel would greatly assist establishing cause. If the fuel was OK, then that only leaves ice. This is just one more proavtive way that RAAus could assist safety.