turboplanner

For goodness sake Oscar, move down from the certification level to the manufacturing and operating level, unless of course you'd like to turn the flame back up the tree to that level and turn the spotlight on them.

The idea that National/International Airworthiness Authorities have moved from the use of prescribed standards of performance for the demonstration by manufacturers of Compliance, is quite transparently incorrect. Nobody with a shred of understanding of the requirements for Certification / Certifying would make such a suggestion.End of.

I'm not about to make a 500 page post to include every nuance, every facet of our system.

It is not going to be possible to contract thousands of documents over three decades on a moving scale and finish up with a post which explains it all.

I was talking about very basic principles, and left Jabiru out of it. You've weaved it back in so here's a second attempt:

You talk about government removing a standard

Prescribed Specification (pre 1980s): "Spectators must be 4 metres clear of the Safety fence" (Government is liable for its decision that 4 metres is safe.

Specification Removed: " Spectators must be protected" [or it may say nothing at all] (Participants make the specification decision and take liability.)

- putting aside for the moment the fact, now agreed, that there is not, and was not and standard set by government

and go on to say that a manufacturer can choose any specification it likes, as long as it meets the standard. What standard?

So we seem to be left with the proposition that an agency responsible to the federal government and controlled whether directly or indirectly by that government appears to have formed the opinion that a particular make of engine (at present that's Jabiru) doesn't meet an industry standard that doesn't exist, or that the agency has formulated a standard but has declined or neglected to publish or publicise that standard and then acted unilaterally against a manufacturer because of its belief that this "standard" has been breached.

Most Responsible Authorities these days are just assessing safety day by day based on observations and evidence, and act on their own triggers. In fact there was mention on this in the Dick Smith thread #1 pdf attachment:

"Some airports such as Coffs Harbour, in northern NSW and with about 350,000 passenger movements, are under designated controlled airspace. Coffs has a control tower. Ballina, with about 430,000 passengers, does not.

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman says the agency is required to assess changes to airspace based on risk, “not hard triggers such as passenger numbers”."

That's probably not mentioned anywhere, just as in this case there were no prescribed specifications which many people seem to have been looking for.

I'm not saying operating out there without the tightrope of a prescribed standard is fair, and I suspect I had a lot to do with Road Safety Acts in 1999 at least spelling out to people that they must comply with vehicle standards and codes of practice which they had established and thought were voluntary, which at least in the transport industry has removed a lot of uncertainty. But bear in mind the purpose of these changes were to remove the liability from the government to us, and that's also the reason DIRD over the decades has been removing engineers.

The Shire of Wentworth case I posted a couple of days ago was a good example of where a Council received no warning at all that a particular curve in a road didn't have consistent warning signs.

Which is why I'm suggesting that chasing after numbers or comparing numbers is a lost cause.

If CASA identifies a risk for whatever reason, you can expect them to act.

Which is why I'm suggesting finding out what all last year was about and what the situation is this year and what can be done to minimise cost and disruption.

"Performance standards" were your words TP not mine. (post# 793)However I'm glad to see that we can at last agree on something: There is no performance standard - published, notional or otherwise, that Jabiru engines have breached. Perhaps the discussion can move on from there.

By removing the specification standard the manufacture was on his own.

By setting a performance based standard as is done in the auto industry, manufacturers can choose any specification it likes, as long as its performance meets the standard.

Where higher risks are involved, the government has tended to leave all the risk with the participants but will move in based on its own triggers. We are in the last group.

It would however be reasonable to assume that motors less reliable than Jabiru, could come in for attention as well eventually, if one applied logic and fairness to any of this. Nev

Wire rope barriers have been a huge success on our highways, and I've done a lot of highway work this year and noticed that whereever there's a new cross beside trees or on a causeway, there's usually a new section of cable, so in that case the Road Authority trigger is one fatal accident.

As I recall the ATSB had very low numbers, but the statistics can be collected from quite a number of different sources.

I've never wiped my bum with either hand......I prefer to wipe it with paper..Alan.

There is no nationally decreed nor internationally agreed 'reliability' standard

The reason is that if CASA specified one, who is to say they are correct? If they decide on a standard that is too lenient and people die, it can be very costly to the government.

The way CASA is reacting is no different to any other government department.

Based on this, the rest of your statement falls away.

And the Performance Standard that Jabiru has breached is?

All are part of today's terms.

I was supposed to take that SERIOUSLY??? Have we slipped into a parallel but opposite universe?Not fair, Sir: I was part of a group that invited Ungerman to be briefed on the actual technical issues. His response was 'too busy right now', and there was a whole gang of boys shouting at him at the time to expel Jabiru. It was all in the School Magazine... and now Ungerman has no clothes so he's not going to come out and talk to us. And Mr Aleck has given him a note that says he doesn't have to, anyway.

I would also have said "too busy" to a group who wanted to talk about technicals, because these days it's up the the manufacturers and operators to decide the technicals, and the regulators are usually only involved in performance standards. So that tells me Lee Ungermann is operating on current DIRD message.

Get to the bottom of the Performance issues in 2014, and you get to the strategy needed to get out of the bog.

...............but MidgieDoug had petered out and was dancing round the room, scratching his back with his right hand scratching his balls with his left hand, and trying with each foot to scratch the other leg. "BASTARDS" he bawled as he attacked the little mites, but as fast as he crushed one, it's partner had bred three. Just then his friendly Real Estate agent called in to see how he was getting on in his new house..............

While the lessons in the history of CASA might be interesting, this thread is about CASA 292/14

Warren Truss has done his "independent review" thing as Ministers like to do to show they care, and moved on.

He said on September 14 LAST YEAR: "the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is a statutory body and, as Minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations."

So how would going behind CASA's back to the Minister encourage them to a sympathetic view?

It's clear that the people who I suggested in #753 might be able to help move this forward are not likely to.

June starts Monday, so talking to CASA would be at the 11th hour.

It's easier for CASA to let the Instrument run than it is to stop it or ease it, but even at the 11th hour it's worth talking.

As I also learnt in GA I had the same thing yoke in the left hand and right hand always on the throttle of you get smashed. but being a lefty. it wasn't a issue but aircraft with the stick in the would be an issue. I would have to change seats or relearn. and the same with guns. I am not able to shot right handed because I cant shut my left eye and keep the right open.

I started on a Victa with central column and left throttle, then went to Cherokee with the reverse.

I didn't find the Jab nearly so controllable, so Geoff it could be that your own plane flies a little better.

It could also be that, like hitting a golf ball, you haven't got to that "click" yet.

Best to train yourself to be ambidextrous. As you go up in size you'll go over to a Yoke with left hand control.

The use of unauthenticated 'data'

coupled with the determination of an ad hoc 'standard' chosen to fit a pre-determined outcome, leaves almost no aircraft safe from this sort of action - if CASA is allowed to continue in this way.

Compliance with accepted standards, regulations, or cutting edge safety policies can be a defence for the participant (as against the Responsible Authority)

I don't believe an RA can come along and say five of yours have broken and three of his are broken, so you are grounded; and before you get excited, I don't believe that happened in this case despite the assertions of some people who put two and two together and got five.

RAAus must be indemnified by the only people who can do it.

Hundreds of thousands of people volunteer in organizations from the CWA to Sky diving in exactly the same conditions as RAA officials.

That's what PL Insurance is for.

I presume you were writing that when I made my earlier comment FH.

Maybe you could give some backing to your claims since it was mentioned on this site only recently that CASA can be sued.

In the case of this thread they have taken action on the grounds of safety, so suing them for negligence would be pretty difficult. If they fail to uphold their responsibility by ignoring their own regulations, ignoring industry standards like Safety Management Systems, or de-scaling regulations, then they could be at risk

As you've been told many times RAA cannot be indemnified.

This is just more hot air, and is not going to get any momentum going to try to ensure the Instrument is not renewed.

Well there you go, just another lot of hot air and rants.

This thread has done more circles than a spinning top, mostly hot air.

CASA took what they saw as safety action as they and their predecessors always have right back to the 1920s when DCA were nailing Clyde Fenton (or trying to)

The Instrument has stuck fast despite all the huffing and puffing, so that should be some sort of lesson that indignant public reaction isn't going to work.

It is due to be reviewed in the next few weeks. Reversing a safety action is a big decision, because if there is a fatality after the action has been rescinded the safety authority is going to be blamed.

Therefore a very sound case is required, and rather than just continue the mothers meeting there are some things which can be done to focus direction and develop a strategy.

Oscar has the ability to simply phone Lee Ungermann and find out what started the thing in the first place, and that may throw some light on who has to be convinced.

If gandaph's boast of a few months ago is correct, he has the skills to find the numbers that were involved, and starting with the case I gave him, decide if CASA need any numbers at all.

It's also time to ask for the number of engine failures which have occurred since the instrument came into effect. I certainly seen any traffic indicating a problem.

From all of that it's then a matter of deciding, if the numbers are down, what the reason is - lower numbers operating, or problems resolved.

I would expect CASA to be doing all that themselves, but it couldn't do any harm for us to work out a reasonable picture for ourselves.

Speed limits have very little impact on the road toll compared to fatigue, alcohol, and the road infrastructure. Cable separators and safety barriers are being installed at a rapid rate due to the big reduction in injuries and fatalities in areas where there are trees.

99.99% of injuries in 30 mph (50 km/hr) zones don't involve experienced speeding drivers. Pedestrians stepping out on to the road are 121 times more likely to be killed nu a non-speeding driver than an experienced speeding driver.

Good subject OME, there will be a point where the pilot can dispense with thinking about it and focus on the next best thing.

There also doesn't appear to be any reason why RAA can't release the bare facts; clearing up the registration status(so that stops conjecture), and the basic status of aircraft, what it was doing etc.

 

Seriously, get a room you two.........

Not a problem; I always try to help people who have difficulties.

I like your new motto Turbs. It's nice to see the light of honest self assessment shining at last from the hall of the mountain king.

Fatuous is as fatuous does Oscar.

The Forsyth report carries no legal weight and has been filed in the various offices months ago, so it is pointless dwelling on it.

When the government is made aware of a safety issue, it historically has acted fast, and historically has been utterly ruthless, some of the past victims being Leyland, International Harvester, and Dodge who were made extinct as a result of braking requirements which were impossible to achieve with Australian production volumes.

So you can survey all you like, and while the financial impact will be traumatic for those involved, there are many who have been similarly traumatised in the past, and went down doing what you suggest.

If you genuinely want to get to the bottom of this and prevent it happening again, find out who asked for this instrument in the first place.