turboplanner

Does anyone know if there was another accident about the same time in the same area because the reporting at first said a six seater and possibly 6 dead?Or was it just another reporting stuff up?

It could have been in the desperate search by Police etc to identify the aircraft, or it could have been an Operator thinking it was one of their aircraft which had departed for that area. There's a lot of confusion in those first minutes and people do their best.

 

 

.....a set of traffic lights next to the new Wagga Wagga Highway Filling Station.

 

Loxette had tendered for, and won the contract for new and exciting signwriting.................

 

 

 

As it stands people may have been given the understanding that they need not comply with CASA's action.Most certainly NOT by me

Thanks, don't worry about the Tautology

 

 

Never mind trying to put words into my mouth Pooh.

I certainly would not want to add to gems like "Pooh", "Pooh Bah", "Carp" etc.

 

You're welcome to use your own words in answer to my invitation: "If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored"

 

However there seems to be a lot of silence from you on that key issue.

 

As it stands people may have been given the understanding that they need not comply with CASA's action.

 

 

Turbs, on that subject I believe there would be SOME who might never get up to speed. You can bang around in a Cessna 172 or Cherokee, or Tripacer and do landings (the ground is down there somewhere) for years and get away with it but never be safe in a Jabiru or Yenns Starlet. or a taildragger RV for that matter. Nev

Yes, I'd agree, the lighter aircraft require a substantially higher level of skill to cope with all conditions including weather and runway placement.

 

 

Never mind saying you "don't believe any here" etc., Never mind about the colouring and the insult, this is yet to be answered:

 

"If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored"

 

 

As I said: "If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored"

 

Bear in mind the CASA action and my comments are aimed at protecting lives.

 

 

They can if they run out of fuel Shafs, but what caused this problem is yet to be determined.

 

 

No it's not in terms of the subject we were discussing which is a very small part of the much wider scope you are trying to squeeze in for your favourite sniping game.

 

If you are a pilot and if you are affected by the CASA action, then by all means show your fellow aviators how it carries no weight and can therefore be completely ignored.

 

 

There is an excellent good argument for PPL's to fly RA aircraft on their PPL - once they have demonstrated competency to a CFI.

Good point.

 

PPls will usually have a massive advantage in BAK, MET, Radio and Nav training, but that's it. Most PCs could fly a Cherokee after a couple of hours conversion, but VERY few PPls could get the low inertia aircraft proficiency without spending enough time that they may as well get the PC as well. I've heard plenty of braggers, but I've also seen the results.

 

 

Camel is right, these are guidelines onlyhttp://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/92_1.pdf

Even more unlikely CASA woul restrict use based on it not meeting their satisfaction

I think you've got a few hundred pages of studying to do.

 

Camel has provided details for both:

 

The Prescriptive based ALA - AUTHORISED LANDING AREA where the government had the responsibility

 

The Performance based ALA - AIRCRAFT LANDING AREA where the pilot has the legal responsibility which replaced the prescriptive version.

 

So the Government (CASA) is now at arms length from a person building and operating an ALA and a pilot using it - any lawsuits would normally be between the participants. (Owner, Operator, CFI, Pilot, Aircraft Owner etc)

 

You've chosen to cherry pick the words "Guidelines", possibly as a result of "The information in this publication is advisory only. There is no legal requirement to observe the details set out in this publication." from the linked publication.

 

You chose not to go on to tell people “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.” and a whole lot more which throws all the responsibility on the pilot to do things like obtaining correct dimensions, or measuring the strip, obtaining, measuring, checking and calculating all those dimensions, percentages and angles.

 

 

 

CASA is sitting at arms length from those airstrip builders, owners, operators and pilots who have the legal duty of care responsibility for their actions, but as the Safety Authority it certainly can step in if an aircraft is non-compliant with the ALA, an operation is non-compliant, or the ALA itself is non-compliant in some aspect (such as splay angle).

 

 

 

Facthunter - Camel's post which included the change from Authorised Landing Area to Aircraft Landing Area is a good example to study the difference between a Prescriptive Regulation and a Non-Prescriptive regulation, where the regulation is pretty much the same, but the responsibilities shift away from the government.

 

 

The Federal Office Of Road Safety would dispute that. The ACSVP wrote prescriptive standards for the performance of vehicle components and the ACSVD wrote prescriptive design standards that were incorporated into the Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicles ( ADR's).

Yes, you are correct, this part doesn't fit the overview I gave.

 

However the Federal Government has a fairly tight control there because they apply to Australian Manufacturers, Importers (through the requirement for Ministerial approval in writing for all imported new vehicles).

 

In general, the following all involve the general public and fit the "performance legislation" era

 

• Importers of second hand vehicles are controlled by the Motor Vehicle Standards Act, 1989
   
   
  
• Modifications, Bodies, Trailers are controlled by a series of Codes (Vehicle Standards Bulletins)
   
   
  
• Specification Compliance (Registration) has been moved from Government to Industry
   
   
  
• Operational Compliance (dynamic loading for safety) has been moved from Government to Industry Code
   
   
  

 

 

For example:

 

If you buy a truck, it will have been complianced to a prescriptive standard of braking so that at maximum gross mass it will stop in a given distance without sliding out of a given lane width. (The reason for the prescription at this level is that ALL vehicles can be made to a design standard in which the "feel" and "actions" and location of the controls, and the ride, handling and stopping of all vehicles is basically the same).

 

If you put a body on it you must ensure it complies with a Code, which ensures that dynamic loading will produce the same characteristics as those complianced for the ADR, and this is self administration.

 

If an operator then loads that vehicle, he has to conform to a code which ensures the dynamic loading is also the same as that when the truck is complianced, this also being self administration.

 

In all of the dot points and the three examples I gave, the governments don't prescribe how you go about doing that.

 

 

Ok this is my last posting on this issue as it's obviously going no where.

That's right it's not.

 

You are not focusing on the basic principle that RTA/RMS did not have a number of incidents before they took unilateral action - it doesn't have to be a single make of engine, it doesn't have to be a single make of truck, it could be several warehouses supplying bananas, one of which contained salmonella bacteria.

 

 

Successive government have worked on the basis that they are running an economy not a society and that the experts in the field are the manufacturers not the consumers. So the government (a commonwealth) now does not act for its members and even on its own behalf fails the test of informed client - how can they receive good advice on fx engineering and mining when they don't engage professional engineers and scientists to provide this advice rather than lawyers and accountants. DCA used to be an engineering organisation - I'm buggered if I know what it is now.

Same as for Facthunter's post. In the prescriptive era, yes Government Departments employed engineers, scientists, technicians, and they inspected, investigated, wrote Certificates (certifying something was safe), and no one thought of suing them. The manufacturers and operators rorted the system, often cheating the inspectors who signed off hoists, cranes, vehicles, food premises etc. and as industries gradually degenerated and people started to sue governments for injuries and deaths the governments switched away from prescriptive legislation where they were the arbiters to performance legislation where they operated at arms length. The safety costs and financial burdens are now carried by the people engaged in the activities.

 

Most people who work in medium to large companies lived through the changes as new policies were introduced for the protection of the Company. The most obvious of these changes has been safety clothing, vehicle use policies, safety work areas, indoctrinations, exclusion of some staff (sales accountants etc) from work areas they were not qualified to enter (the most popular change), and the ATO (Authority To Operate) certificate which helps to stop untrained maintenance workers using fork lifts for ladders, or teachers using chainsaws etc.

 

Most of these changes occurred during the 1980s, and the part I will never forgive the governments for is that they changed their legislation and closed down departments on the quiet - the main ingredient being to shift costs from themselves to the people engaged in the activities.

 

So we can't point to a series of announcements for you Col, you just have to trawl through about thirty years of ACTS and compare them with their Prescriptive predecessors.

 

Even though the financial burden had shifted by the end of the 1980s, this stealthy change meant that many people were not aware that they now were the front line, that they had to make up their own rules (Safety Management Systems, Safety Policies, Operational Policies etc) to protect themselves when sued, and those people sometimes loudly proclaimed that the rules they had to work to (National Codes, Bulletins etc) were only "guidelines" so the States introduce "Safety Legislation" in 1998-1991 which made the safety codes mandatory.

 

For example in Victoria, the Motor Car Act 1958 was backed up by the Road Safety (Vehicles) Act 1999 which made these codes mandatory with penalties for non-compliance. It didn't prescribe the details in the Codes, just made it mandatory to comply with the Code.

 

So the governments stayed at arms length from prescription, just as, today CASA stays at arms length from the work DCA used to do.

 

Understand that, and you'll understand how CASA can notice that an airfield, or some airfields is/are non ALA compliant and issue an instruction to restrict operations until it/they are brought into compliance with the code, and they don't have to measure the length or splays or get involved in giving advice on how to fix it/them, and they don't have to have a magical number, or a number which the industry agrees with.

 

 

Australia's watch dog on aviation has done some magnificent work in the past. An example is the wing spar on the Aero Commander. The spar was failing at a certain point and they traced that back to a fault where a bend was formed during manufacture. No one else had done this research and the process was applauded world wide, because it was done methodically."We" did the first full fatigue analysis of the Dassault Mirage wing structure.

There was a lot of work done on Lycoming 540 crankshaft faulures, where many crankshafts had to be replaced with different material spec parts. We are running out of the expertise to do these things. Nev

Yes they did, but that was back in the Prescriptive era. You need to study why that changed and why governments operate the way they do today.

 

 

In cootes example someone actually died and action was taken againt ONE operator not a brand of truck

Two people died...after the crash.... when they decided to walk downhill instead of uphill, and were consumed by fire when the flowing fuel ignited.

 

Both of you have missed the point of the comparison which was that a government started detailed safety action across the entire fleet on the basis of a very limited number of issues.

 

I don't mind if you want to play on words, make up stories, or attack CASA in any way you can, but bear in mind that if you don't grasp the principles at play here, you are likely to suffer the same pain in other areas.

 

 

"Problem" used here = "analyse the engine symptoms to determine the cause of each engine failure" - they don't have to do that; they can act when they notice engine failures and require the manufacturer/operator to do the analysis to solve the "problem"

 

 

I don't disagree with what you say but you can't just can something without regard for the consequences. they haven't properly analysed the problem, even now.

If you are talking about CASA or RAA, as I mentioned before they are not obligated to analyse the problem, just act on the results. Personally I would have confined my concerns to "forced landings" which directly relates to potential risk.

 

If you are talking about Jabiru, perhaps they have by now, perhaps they haven't, but we were talking about CASA primarily, and they can sit and wait until the statistics improve.

 

 

So given to level apparent either incompetence or maliciousness involved so far - Turbo, I think we can be seriously suspicious that this water contamination will make its way into any future quoted failures to justify their actions or their continued adherence to an untenable position.

It is a pity they can't bring themselves to say "Sorry, we made a mistake with those two, but the other 38 were definitely engine failures", since they really didn't need a specific number to take action.

 

Given the horde of hostile owners who will descend on them (and should), I suspect this one will not be added to any mythical scorecard.

 

 

Neither CASA or the RAAus would have the resources internally to properly analyse all this

We're in the Performance-Based era, remember; they don't have to do that.

 

There's a parallel situation where a Cootes Transport semi trailer rolled over and two people were killed. Some faults were found on the semi, and some other semis were checked, and the NSW Authority required Cootes to fix all the faults found, check its entire NSW fleet fix any faults and submit the trucks for inspection. Some more faults were found at the inspections, and a NSW Authority team went to Victoria and advised the Victorian transport authority on what to look for and the same cycle started in Victoria.

 

The cycles went on for months, cost the fleet millions of dollars, resulted in them selling at least one division after they lost contracts, and also resulted in them selling many fleet trucks prematurely.

 

Cootes had to hire specialists to solve some of the issues; the Authorities didn't analyse what the causes of the issues were, just acted on the results.

 

Any evidence of FAULTS must not be kept under wraps for the sake of the people operating these engines, and the community generally. Anybody in Aviation who is aware of some occurrence affecting Aviation Safety is required by LAW to report it, not keep it under wraps, no matter who it is. No one is immune from the principle.

The old days of the DCA Inspector, in his grey coat, arriving at the operator's premises with the faulty valve and the solution are gone. I don't think they are keeping the faults under wraps, I don't think they even know what they are, and these days don't need to. They are just working on the fact that a large number of engines have been failing and the manufacturer needs to do something about it and in the meantime operators should limit some operations.

 

 

Till you are completely sure this hasn't happened in the past, (and it has) wouldn't you want more assurance that it won't in the future, than just rely on hope that things will be done properly?CASA are now locked in to a situation that still lacks clarity as to what exact evidence the whole action is based on. They relied on questionable statistics. Nev

If you are referring to something posted on here relating to 40 engine failures in a year with allegations that two weren't engine failures, we've covered that before.

 

It was probably carelessness, and may well have been corrected. We don't know, not having seen what was attached to the original request to CASA or any other private correspondence.

 

If you are more comfortable, you could say 38 and see how fair that was.

 

If someone sued CASA for financial losses due to the restrictions, then they would have to produce a set of figures, and would be unlikely to be silly enough to class a fuel exhaustion as an engine failure. In the event they were silly enough, it's likely that they would agree to reduce the total by the two in contention, so you have 38 on the table.

 

RAA members have access to all the engine failures reported to RAA, so they have years of data, and that data goes to CASA. If you want the cause of the action to be clearly stated, then you would go back over the years for the reported data, add VH aircraft data from ATSB, and reported to CASA either from ATSB or through the Incident Reporting System.

 

 

Will still go on CASA list of Jabiru engine failuresWhat if there were children playing in that swamp.......

I was interested to see if this was a formal CASA statement or whether you had made it up, and you've confirmed it came from you.

 

 

...porridge" said Turbo who remembered his nursery rhymes well.

 

"I heard that Goldy Loxy was "displaying" on the corner of Bayliss St and Sturt Highway a couple of nights ago and a B Double ran off the road and through..............

 

 

Will still go on CASA list of Jabiru engine failuresWhat if there were children playing in that swamp.......

You have some indication of that from CASA?

 

 

the engine fail light came on...... quality journalism there.

Where?

 

This sounds professional to me.

 

"Engine failure reportedly prompted the landing on the narrow Stanwell-Waroula Road, near the Capricorn Highway, about 9.45am."