turboplanner

Facthunter, the members write the Safety Management System, and they certainly should involve you to ensure the things which concern you are avoided.

I only made that up FH, I can hear your teeth grinding from here. Harleys are an icon, and a world class marketing example.

Oscar is on the money FV. The lawsuits should go to the people making the money out of flying, the ones responsible for converting spectators into participants. The lawsuits can only kick in when there has been negligence, so there's no real issue with this.

Each FTF should have its SMS, however the way RAA went about it is onerous, and a better way would be for FTF's to return comments on what they have received (other than "I don't want it") and then a central policy be written, with an FTF section where the FTF can write up their unique requirements (e.g. relating to any circuit restriction due to skydivers etc). That way there is a base manual, which shows the FTF owner the basic format, and reduces his task specifically to his operations.

Regarding your idea of using the SAG provision, from my reading that fits under the Safety Review Committee, and is more appropriate to the group of people who will need to volunteer for Compliance and Auditing tasks, and that group must be independent of CFI's.

You'll never get lost on a Harley - just follow the parts trail home.

Nice little place

No, I know what you meant. All the Jawa and Jap guys I know walk with their shoulders pointing in one direction and their legs in another - brave men. At Rowley Park one night I heard the crack of a helmet hitting the fence above the crowd and PA. He was carted off in an ambulance and an hour later the announcer, one of Adelaide's DJ's said "He's alright!, he only has a broken jaw!"

At Olympic Park in Melbourne we had a special race meeting with plywood laid on the running track and dirt on top of that. Both cars and bikes were involved and the cars shifted quite a big cushion up against the fence, prompting the Internationals to ride their bikes up onto the fence at the end of the corners. One went down and dislocated his shoulder, then came out and raced again two heats later!

".........hanker......and then I sneezed. Sorry about all that green stuff over you"

Pamlee responded with a knee in the nuts and added "WTF M8!, do it again and I'll..........."

I never thought I would see anyone publicly say he had owned a Flying Merkel Pope AJS Royal Enfied. I can just imagine FH walking in to the local Hells Angels (if they haven't all been shot) bar and coming out with that mouthful - there'd be a pregnant silence lasting 10 minutes!

I think there is only a very tenuous link between the quality and extent of instruction on the accident rate. It's part and parcel of any 'official' report or survey to start looking for scapegoats. The fatality rate probably is better linked to the type of accident, ie low level/high speed, or VFR into IFR etc. As I stated previously, education via a SMS will take time to produce quantifiable outcomes. In the meantime, if pilots were to think more about currency and recurrent training - and heeded their instruction rather than their mates' bar stories - we'd soon improve things. As to whether we'll attract unwelcome scrutiny from the regulators........ well, that's a risk best assumed by we much older and experienced people as we do have standing with them, and we have less long term career 'risk' to worry about. happy days,

The most detailed investigation = the most accurate assessment of causes.

The most accurate assessment of causes = the most accurate decision on how to reduce repeats.

Categorizing accidents is the best way to start honing in on specific areas to investigate, because patterns start to become obvious.

Two examples of categorized accidents and subsequent actions which have saved thousands of Australian lives are:

Identifying that in many fatal car accidents the occupants who died were found to have been thrown out of the vehicle. Simply fitting seat belts eliminated those statistics overnight for an immediate reduction in the road toll of around 50%.

Identifying that in about half the remaining fatal accidents the driver was drunk. RBT substantially reduced those fatalities.

Since the world wide principle of Safety Management Systems is that you write your own, and you live it every day, the opportunity is there to identify recurring fatalities, such as pilots dropping perfectly good aircraft out of the sky, flying into cloud/fog, fuel exhaustions, flying after last light, currency and recurrent training etc.

The ideal way of doing this is to have a big statistical, accurate, database but we know this is not going to happen unless ATSB investigate recreational aircraft incidents and accidents. Facthunter always brings up the cost of this, but just at the moment since it appears to have been decided recently that ATSB is to investigate all GA incidents and accidents, that this would discriminate against RA where fatalities now appear to be exceeding GA.

This may not happen, but if RA accidents are categorised, there is a clear indication that they could be substantially reduced even with the information which has appeared on this site, because we can still take the reverse of the statistical starting point, and begin by writing obvious causes and solutions into the SMS, and reviewing the statistics, which then, if it is done correctly are likely to come down virtually to the same extend as those accidents examined minutely.

I agree with you that very little needs to be done to reduce the statistics.

I haven't seen any sign of anyone looking for scapegoats, but I have seen repeated contempt for safety from just a few, and they are the ones who would already have singled themselves out for scrutiny, not the other 97%.

Yeah great start threatening CFIs now,what does this mean? if you are a CFI you cannot have an opinion? You just have to tow the party line no matter how stupid it is?

Yes you do, and it's toe the party line, and there's nothing stupid about it - read the documentation you're supposed to have been following for three years.

In fact, student training is guided by multiple syllabii. The CFI ensures that these syllabii are taught. Also, each student's grasp of required knowledge is tested. It is interesting to note that both myself, and another CFI posting on this thread, broadly share the same professional opinion of the proposed SMS.

On the first three sentences - if only that were true around Australia; the high fatality rate indicates that might not be correct.

For the second sentence, I think there might be three of you who have invited some close attention in the future.

I had a look at the LATEST FAA information this morning, as I mentioned above and you have to comply with way more than one book. Pretty much all you think you'd need is not the same as what the FAA requires.

In Australia, the work or several different Government Departments working at different levels on different issues could never be combined into one book, hasn't been in the last 30 years, and is never likely to. In fact the DIT was the first Government Department to switch to living documents, where updates and corrections can be made seamlessly and they did it at my suggestion. That's why you can go on to the DIT website and see the latest version of Australian Design Rule, the latest version of all licensing requirements, where CASA fits in, the Sport Pilot section of CASA, the job descriptions of our board members and so on. No screwing around with books and documents which may be two versions out of date.

If I could get them to do nesting diagrammes, and multiple search name lookups we would be at the front of the world.

speed_racer - not wanting to frighten you but wait til you do stalls with a bit of power on and some flap out! You'll almost always get a wing drop in that situation and you need to see it and be able to deal with it. Do it often enough and it becomes fun!

Power off stalls are taught early in training (should always be taught before first solo), and in most aircraft are gentle a little more than mushing. You are usually taught to pick up the hint of a wing drop that occurs, and that is easy.

speed_racer and others, do not attempt full power stalls before you have been trained by an instructor because that same aircraft that was so easy to handle will do things so fast that most learners will be overwhelmed and slow to react. The nose attitude is much higher and when the AoA reaches the stall point you don't have the momentum you had in the downward mushing power-off stall, so the wing drop will be much more violent the chances of getting into a spin greater.

Even the most docile of aircraft, the Cherokee can become a monster in a power-on stall.

Powerwin, Couldn't agree more mate, but lets get rid of all the waffle and Legalese BS that out British based regulations (all three versions being used currently) are covered in. Get it all down to one book like the yanks...it works, it's simple, and everyone knows where the goalposts are.........................Maj.....

(a) You were the one who tried to con us that the yanks had just one book.

(b) I quoted and addressed your post 845; FAA is now extensively incorporating ICAO standards

The purpose of providing the links I posted is to allow people to go directly to the source for information, rather than having someone pull their leg.

With source documents there the truth becomes very obvious.

Powerwin, Couldn't agree more mate, but lets get rid of all the waffle and Legalese BS that out British based regulations (all three versions being used currently) are covered in. Get it all down to one book like the yanks...it works, it's simple, and everyone knows where the goalposts areand

 

Only problem is CASA doesn't always work within the ICAO guidelines as anyone in the industry will well know. Only when it suits them. Their lack of acceptance of the FAA A&P (ICAO type 2) being a classic example. There are also many airspace guidelines that they refuse to accept. NZ is more ICAO compliant than we are

The FAA was simple when you were flying there Major; I experienced it.

After being used to face to face weather briefings, full reporting where my flights were tracked live etc in Australia, I was in the US and decided to fly down the Grand Canyon. The local CFI just gave me the key to a Cherokee, pointed it out on the apron and said "Have a good flight!" After I explained that he was coming with me to do the radio if nothing else, we flew straight over the top of Nellis Air Force Base, with about 100 fighters lined up side by side and about 30 miles from Area 51 where the CIA and USAF were flying Oxcart/Blackbird missions.

However, the FAA is not the same animal as it was when you were there. I had a look at Ultralight operations this morning and the regulations look about as hard to find and as complicated as the CASA/RAA system - certainly not in one book as you suggested. Those days are clearly over so there's no point in whining on.

I also looked for ICAO association and it's obvious that FAA are incorporating more and more standards every year. For example one note said "ICAO flight plan procedures change significantly in November 2012

In passing interest I wondered if the big bad SMS had come anywhere near FAA, and I found they were already fully compliant.

Here's the FAA front page relating to SMS

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/

Here are frequently asked questions, which will be helpful to a lot of people who have been misinformed about RAA obligations

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/faq/

And here, in tjhis link, shining like a beacon is the reference to ICAO Document 9859, the EXACT SAME ONE that RAA was required to have complied with in 2010!

In other words FAA have already done what we have failed to do.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs900/sms/media/newsletter/sms_qr_guide.pdf

So let's just cut the BS and disinformation and get on with it!

It's good that you posted that FV because it's the ICAO SMS that's mandatory for Recreational Aviation Australia.

About as controversial as getting a wimp to take an injection.

OK I'll try to make it simpler. For the sake if this exercise CASA is the "butcher" and ATSB is the greengrocer.

We are not getting information on carrot prices.

You said you would bring this up with the butcher.

I pointed out it was the greengrocer who was supposed to provide carrot prices.

What we need is less people attacking the butcher because they can't get carrot prices.

That one won't wash with me FV, the two are not mutually exclusive and we already get enough data to send us in the right direction.

Ultimately good statistics = accurate targetting, but in terms of avoiding a mandatory Safety requirement I think some people will need to face criminal charges in some fatalities.

Next time some agreement comes up to be signed with CASA, we need to say "hang on, we need accident reports or no go" ..We have a right to some information .

CASA (your friend who keeps you flying regardless of constant kicks up the ding[c. 2013 Facthunter]) is not likely to be wanting to talk about or sign up to anything to do with accident reports, mainly because the jurisdiction for that is deliberately kept separate, so that in the event of a catastrophe, CASA's position in the event can be investigated by an outside body, which incidentally has not been backward in kicking the Ar$e of our friend CASA in recent years.

Aviation management in Australia is controlled by the Minister for Infrastructure & Transport through Department of Infrastructure & Transport (DIT)

www.infrastructure.gov.au is the base link covering land/sea/air transport

www.infrastructure.gov.au/international/icao is the link showing Australia’s connection to International aviation.

www.infrastructure.gov.au/Airport Planning/Index.asp is the link showing the DIT relationship to airports and airport activities.

This has been badly misrepresented in some recent RF posts.

www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/index.aspx is the link showing DIT relationship to safety and accident investigation.

Here you can see that several separate bodies are involved in aircraft safety for a recreational aircraft.

• Department of Infrastructure and Transport
   
   
  
• Airservices Australia
   
   
  
• Australian Maritime Safety Authority
   
   
  
• Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)
   
   
  
• Bureau of Meteorology
   
   
  
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
   
   
  

Those who don’t travel cross country, don’t file flight plans, don’t need weather reports, don't get involved in the mandatory Performance & Operations requirements, and don’t need to be rescued may not be familiar with the touch points for Airservices Australia, Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

These are all separate bodies, and if you fly in Australian airspace with other aircraft, it might pay to bring yourself up to date with your safety obligations. Same applies to Radio – if you’re flying in Australian airspace so are QLink operators.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/overview.aspx This provides an overview of ATSB, and says:

“The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is an independent Commonwealth Government Statutory Agency. The ATSB is governed by a Commission and is entirely separate from transport regulators, policy makers and service providers.”

So it is not a division of CASA, it is an independent body, and is appropriate that a body investigating accidents should have an arm’s length relationship with ALL participants including regulators.

The failure to investigate, from an aviation aspect, accidents involving aircraft registered by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. is not an issue for CASA to sort out.

CASA are not involved in investigating accidents, and the administration and training materials of RAA need to be brought up to date to reflect this.

Aviation accidents in Australia are investigated by a separate body, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). RAA needs to bring its documentation up to date to reflect this, and the current policy of ATSB to investigate some Recreational Aircraft accidents and incidents.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/files/Australias_State_Safety Program_2012_FA6.pdf t leads to a document which gives a good indication of how it all fits together and was updated/written in April last year.

Paragraph 1.3 shows who is responsible for Accident and Incident investigation

Paragraph 2 is headed State Safety Risk Management, and this talks about the SMS approach.

As we now know RAA has not has an operating SMS since 2010 and is currently non - compliant , and sooner rather than later CASA is going to have to move to legal sanctions regarding this breach.

Crap on to the ULP girl, then it was back to the chocked LW.

Madge who didn't believe in HF forgot about the chocks and gave it full throttle which on a 912 is about the same as a Singer sewing machine doing a buttonhole.

Nothing happened.

"The sound that crows make! I've been ducked! he said, and everyone.....

The fluctuation in numbers could also be that although there was an initial perception of where the HF push came from - silly accidents, it's development and rollout was a disaster, with at least two independently written books which didn't coincide with the RAA syllabus or questions, and a pathetic couldn't care less exam.

The whole exercise needs to be started from scratch again, this time without the money making book sellers, and drawing on the examples which created the statistics, which showed the need for it in the first place.

If you research and analyse the statistics professionally, and tailor the training material to those statistics, and not academic theory related to a skindiving pilot, and have one set of training material, and ensure there's an exam before first solo, and FI audits at frequent intervals during training, you'll instill some of what some people call airmanship into future pilots.

...released her tie downs (aviation TFP (term for Planey))

"The ducks are lined up in a row" yelled Pete Gonetoseed" and as usual no one had any idea what he was talking about. "told you we needed a governess" he added, and now it all fitted into place.

"So that's.........."

Great! that should give you long term security and Existing Use rights for many years.

Did it come in the form of a Permit, or a letter?

A Permit carries a lot more weight to defend Existing Rights. I had a letter permitting me to put fill on my property from a Council which was later amalgamated with another one, and the new Planning Manager decided the letter carried no weight. By the time I had solved it I was about $10,000 out of pocket.

Either way make sure you have copies securely stored because it could be a decade or so before they are needed.

Another issue which can crop up is that a neighbour decides to plant trees around his boundary, and what you've got is good grounds for going to the Council and preventing that if talks fail.

All in all a very impressive project.

The SMS and similar type systems are set up by governments and entities like CASA, not to attack the problems straight on, but to appear as though they have. They can then say "well we required them to instigate a SMS system , so it's not our fault , we did our bit" while not really doing much to eliminate the danger at all.

Then an incident occurred where a Machine Examiner was found to have been negligent because he had not in fact checked a safety component, and from that time the car checks took a lot longer.

CASA have just been a joint defendant with RAA in a claim, and I can assure you they will already be under pressure not to neglect their safety obligations. The transport industry tried what you said in the second line, and copped specific Chain of Responsibility legislation in every State, which could now very quickly be added to your operations if there's a sniff of just giving an SMS lip service. The days you are talking about have long gone.

Re the compliance and enforcement team required, we discussed it in this thread http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/raaus-sms-how-to-best-go-about-it.64103/,

and I gave a sample structure from another industry in #9.