turboplanner

I wonder whether the members had any Agenda items.?

 

 

Old news, I have been paid out 10 grand tax free years ago. Time will tell if I am effected .

I say this in the kindest possible way.......but look at the signs, look how you spelled affected.

 

 

Whoops - too late - I guess my flight over the Southern Alps last week would be regarded by turboplanner and Doug as totally irresponsible - since I would have needed to get to 12,000 ft in order to glide to a safe landing if the engine had stopped and I only managed 7500 - I suppose I had better stick to flying around the Canterbury Plains in future. In fact, if I dont fly at all then I really will be completely safe. Rather boring though!

I've been flown around the Southern Alps by fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, and none of the pilots left themselves without an escape route smart men.

 

We don't have anything in Australia that compares with the magnitude of the southern alps.

 

In your case, you even knew the performance requirement, 12,000 feet for your suggested safe flight yet still persisted, so you are asking for it.

 

There's no way a properly trained and competent airman even in an Ultralight would be restricted to the Canterbury Plains, and the rest of the sentence is just whistling past the graveyard. You need to have a heart to heart talk to a good pilot.

 

 

Trikes and power lines seem to be going together these days.

 

 

Serious question, you have an engine out over tiger country - exactly how is training going to make a difference?Plenty of experienced Pilots in highly maintained GA aircraft have been lost to this situation.

You are/should be/should have been trained not to flight plan over so-called tiger country unless you are able to maintain a height which allows you to glide clear.

 

So that training will make all the difference in the world.

 

Before someone says "If you can't do that you can't fly", as an example, none of the operations leasing the aircraft I flew would allow aircraft to track directly from Melbourne over the top of the Great Dividing Range to the north. During training, one solo Navex was from Melbourne to Albury and part of the training was to flight plan to meet this requirement.

 

This means that a lot of people would not be making the flights they boast about today in aircraft with a much lower engine reliability.

 

Looking at it from another point of view, if your touch down speed is 65 kts, you are rolling at 121 km/hr, 60 kts - 111 km/hr, 50 kts - 81 km/hr, and you are rolling in something much less steerable, with much less braking, and which is much more fragile than a car, so you don't have to be Einstein to know than unless you have relatively smooth ground, with relatively few trees, you are going to be torn to pieces along with your passenger. And that's what has happened on many occasions in crashes we've all seen in recent years. Around Melbourne two have occurred following an EFATO where there simply was nowhere to land without being killed.

 

Can't do it? Don't do it.

 

 

I don't want to fly what I'm not fixing. We are running out of good mechanics. Nev

If that's the case then RAA privileges for maintaining own aircraft should be curtailed at the same rate.

 

 

As an aside, why isn't this sort of thing on the RAA web site? Seems odd that an association's business gets more discussion\information on a third party web site than its own.

Why are you asking us?

We are the ones who care enough to debate these issues.

 

 

Your first post worked and you have two answers. Good luck with it.

 

 

That's because we demonstrated our contempt for learning skills so effectively over the years.

 

 

Care to share some supporting evidence FT?

 

 

I know what I know and I`m happy to stay with that! If I want to know more, I am prepared to learn it.So,what`s the answer? Frank.

Never stop learning (making the effort to keep up with the latest)

 

 

The million $$$ question," How do I know, what I don`t know"? :scratching head:Frank.

In your case, it probably wouldn't be much, but you would be surprised how true this saying is for people in many industries and walks of life.

 

They may go through a certain course, or be taught by a certain person, either of which could be considered scanty, but they don't know that, and they get a Certificate or a Licence, and even then may go through a large part of their life, then BANG - an event they were not taught to guard against changes their life.

 

 

Actually I was taught to only lower my flaps either on late downwind or on base (or finals if so needed) NOT in the turn (can't remember the exact particulars but was told of asymmetric problems and can't remember if it was caused in some models by lowering flaps in the turn or if lowering them while in straight flight gave you a better idea if they were asymmetric, meaning you could feel it a lot better than while turning)

There are some aircraft (not that there is anything wrong with that), very close to home (RA), which will be above flap extension speed until settled on Base.

 

In GA on City circuits it's not unusual to have one stage of flap out and the nose in the air and throttle down for quite some time on base to space the aircraft in order to get a landing prize.

 

 

people are challenged by your "powerful" intellect GNu

It's just as well you have a sense of humour FT

 

 

I notice that most of you are referring to GA aircraft when this is a recreational aircraft site.

You mean I can't fly GA aircraft for recreation?

 

 

But we would all expect them to only include truthful data in their deliberations upon which they make their decisions. And from the start they appear to have not.

As far as I can tell from my own research, this action was REQUESTED of CASA, and if that occurred, then the requestee had the obligation to supply the supporting data to CASA.

 

The industry also could expect that where zero engine failures is an unattainable goal through all engine types then some benchmark failure rate should be established.

The Legal industry doesn't agree with you, doesn't accept that it's OK to kill someone, even if it was an unusual event. We have an impossible target to work to, and I have in the past set down regulations based on levels where no one has previously been injured/killed (some people call this "world's best practice")

 

Simply comparing one brand to another and stating that one has more failures than another and closing down the poorer is unacceptable if they both are below the bench mark.

I agree with you, but I think you'll find this point came out of social media and has just been repeated and repeated, particularly in terms of Camit vs Jabiru and Rotax vs Jabiru.

 

Lack of a benchmark IS the regulators failure.

Coming out of the above point, I don't think you can just use the leading brand as a benchmark, and I don't think you can just use engine issues as a benchmark.

Forced Landings are a better benchmark. There are many engine issues which can be predicted or fixed on the ground, so they don't form part of a safety issue, and shouldn't be lumped in.

 

Lack of comprehensive recording is equally to blame.

 

Lack of reporting incidents so they can be recorded and the degree of the problem established is unconscionable, and equally to blame.

 

It Seems that the 41 engine failures in 90,000 flying hours CASA finally stated after much coersion from the industry actually includes only 12 engine failures and the rest are "major malfunctions" ( undefined and also not adhering to any benchmark of severity). The comparison of failures to malfunctions across different engines has similarly not been defined. The engine failures apparently includes at least one fuel exhaustion.

The "41 engine failures which is alleged to also include non-relevant details" I suspect is NOT the official knowledge, and could bring out into the open if they wished.

 

• Isn't it a fact that ALL RAA incident and accident data automatically goes to CASA?
   
   
  
• Isn't it a fact that CASA also gets incident and accident data from VH registered recreational aircraft?
   
   
  
• Isn't it a fact that pilots, Clubs, airfield operators and even the general public can report incidents to CASA?
   
   
  
• Isn't it a fact that CASA have FoIs travelling all over the country receiving complaints?
   
   
  
• Isn't it a fact that ATSB forwards details of their investigations?
   
   
  

 

 

 

Based on that, I would expect:

 

• ATSB data to be small
   
   
  
• RAA data to be bigger
   
   
  
• CASA data to include all ATSB data, plus the information they collect through their own resources.
   
   
  

 

 

I don't know where the 41 failures in 90,000 hours came from, but be careful, because CASA may be holding off for any lawsuits where they would be able to produce ALL of the above data.

 

I am on a couple of medical regulator panels and if my committees made any decisions based on similar levels of evidence or rather apparent lack of it and then tried to make edicts based on it we would be sued before we closed the meeting for lunch.

Sure, IF there is no evidence, but the evidence I produced from RAA figures was damning enough to require action, and nothing happened.

Sometimes with safety decisions you are better to make a mistake which costs financially than wait for enough people to be injured or to die.

 

I can remember one night recommending, after a massive accident fire came to our attention, that the exemption on that car class be lifted and 11o0 drivers be required to wear fire suits. My members unanimously approved the decision.

 

But then Most of us work in a society where wronged parties are able to seek redress. Aviation is a unique situation where a regulator simply has to utter the word "safety" and then gets free reign to do anything they like because those who are affected have no power to complain lest their licences and capacity to operate are simply removed and to disagree is taken as some acceptance that you don't want safety.

Another social media myth repeated by people who have no idea how governments work.

 

RAA could resolve this substantially by self administering like similar organizations - but that would mean a workable Compliance and Enforcement regime.

 

 

THE BOTTLE, THE BOTTLE!!!

 

 

They might not have to say anything but they would gain much more respect and trust if they were more upcoming with the specific information they base their actions on and how they interpret it. I personally doubt they have the internal expertise at identifying causes of engine faults , in the current circumstances. These sorts of skills are rare these days. Same as doctors who can good a good idea of your heart function with a stethoscope. We want to reduce everything to numbers on a piece of paper. When you include engines that have run out of fuel in stats, you aren't doing your job. Nev

They do not have to have any expertise in identifying causes of engine faults, they have to react to safety data, and make designers/manufacturers/users identify and correct faults.

They didn't design the aircraft, they didn't manufacture the aircraft and they don't operate the aircraft.

 

These misunderstandings just seem to roll on and on and on, and the hocus pocus of blaming the regulator continues.

 

The manufacturer has at least made an effort, but the discussion has rolled on for four months. The random nature of this problem means we don't have to wait for 500 hours to see if this has been an improvement; we should see the early failures drop away, and other pre-500 hour failures drop away, and so far it appears this might be happening.

 

 

All good theories, but useless without effectively teaching Human Factors

 

These guys just love the gear horn - must have been an enthralling conversation.

 

 

 

Sounds like he's caught small text disease.

 

 

We always said you'd go blind.

 

 

Another first hand witness flying at a higher altitude saw the valleys socked in by cloud.

 

 

A BRS is not much use to you if you smash into the side of a hill at cruise speed.

 

 

Which day? I'm saying that although most days may be 20 nm visibility, there are still ones which will catch you out, as per the ATSB report

 

 

I think the original distances were in miles and "metrified" and rounded up.. Whatever works for you. It's often the small thing close up or a larger one further away? issue. I still get caught out on the larger distances Over say 20 km's. That's what a stormscope or weather radar is for because I'm talking of systems rather than individual clouds.. Nev

Metrication came to Australia in 1972.

 

Aviation, which had always used Nautical Miles (which may have had something to do with map projections) were given an exemption.

 

It shows you the out of control nature of CASA, when they start adding rules containing distances in metres, while retaining nautical miles.