CASA Deed of Agreement

Yes that is true. There are two questions that then become relevant. Is the regulation of ultralight activity necessary to fulfill a treaty obligation?

 

Does "external affairs" apply to a power that has been explicitly not given by the people at a referendum?

The regulation of UL activity is part of the broad power to legislate in regard to aviation granted to the Commonwealth by legislation passed pursuant to the external affairs power which derived from Australia's signature on international aviation treaties (creating IATA and the like). The CommonweLth has evinced the intention to "cover the field" hence the States have virtually no legislative control of aviation themselves.

 

The external affairs power is a specific clause in the Constitution s51(xxix). Interestingly, things like maritime activities, lighthouses and such all have their own particular subsection but aviation hadn't occurred on 1901 when the fathers (no women) of the nation formulated the Constitution Act.

 

Kaz

 

 

RAAus used to publish accident reports quite similar to ATSB initial findings reports. ASRA still does. Why did we stop?

 

I agree with Maj, we need to find a way to do this. Kaz may be right that negotiating an arrangement with ATSB might be the best way, but whatever the solution is, as an incoming Board member I will be working to progress this issue..

 

 

Now on the RAA Members Only portal - a link to the CASA Surveillance Manual. This contains the methodology for scoring RAAOs (of which RAA is one). I suspect RAA has scored badly on some of these and this is why CASA is taking an interest.

 

Read it and score your organisation. What did you get? Could it be improved? What can we do?

 

 

Sue

 

 

We were told human factors was the answer to pilots making bad decisions resulting in accidents, I think that would be now be shown to be not the case. Now we have the SMS about to be imposed on us it and it remains to be seen what effect that will have but I think learning from accident reports would be far more beneficial that the HF and SMS put together.

 

If the Police reports are no good for legal reasons why are they appropriate for the Coroner? Surely there is way we can have accident reports?

 

I can't help thinking if the same energy was put into getting accident reports as has been applied to Human Factors and now the SMS we would now have accident reports.

 

 

We were told human factors was the answer to pilots making bad decisions resulting in accidents, I think that would be now be shown to be not the case. Now we have the SMS about to be imposed on us it and it remains to be seen what effect that will have but I think learning from accident reports would be far more beneficial that the HF and SMS put together.If the Police reports are no good for legal reasons why are they appropriate for the Coroner? Surely there is way we can have accident reports?

 

I can't help thinking if the same energy was put into getting accident reports as has been applied to Human Factors and now the SMS we would now have accident reports.

You may have been told that, but I remember it slightly differently - that in a large number of incidents, injury accidents and fatal accidents the primary cause was human factors (or putting it more realistically someone making a mistake) In other words they had been trained for a procedure, might have been successfully doing it for 2000 hours, but screwed up.

 

From this came a decision which gravitated to CASA and to RAA, that some focus on HF could prevent most of these.

 

At that point it turned into a ridiculous farce, with some industry booksellers concocting their version of training, and in general a quite irrelevent syllabus. I'm still to read about a pilot who grabbed a few crays thirty feet down, threw them in the Cessna and immediately climbed to 15,000 feet whereupon his eyeballs blew out.

 

Even if the cases where HF was a factor were written in simple language and posted on the ATSB website, and pilots were examined from material on that website would be better. You'd have to keep the exam in because as we know a percentage of GA and RA pilots have a healthy disregard for any safety training.

 

The SMS has been EXTREMELY badly explained in both GA and RA. I'm not sure of the statistics in GA, but if, as someone posted, there has been no reduction in injuries and fatalities, CASA needs to start again, and RAA needs to ensure that its system is not just a ritual "we've done it" series of books along the lines of what we've seen so far.

 

A safety management system is a complete culture of formalising what safe people are already doing. So it's targeted at the unsafe, sloppy, and detail challenged people who for example allow their aircraft to fall out of the sky when the engine stops instead of making a forced landing with perhaps a few broken bones. Reaching those people, in some cases removing them from the industry, and on other cases retraining requires a culture change in both the good and the bad. Right now for example, a lot of the safe pilots consider that the fatality issue is nothing to do with them, but the unsafe ones don't think they are unsafe and are not going to fix themselves.

 

Safety management is just that - managing for safety - so coming back to Safety Management Systems, you certainly will see some that haven't worked, and when you look at them you'll quickly see the people who built them didn't really know their business. However. other companies and organizations who have tuned in their management system to manage key safety points for their business or organization, WILL be able to show a big improvement, and that's what we need to be striving for because the current trend is taking too many people.

 

 

Turbo said...... the current trend is taking too many people.

 

Mmmm maybe if we knew the cause of those accidents we could do something about it. Before you can solve a problem you have to identify the cause of the said problem.

 

 

Turbo said...... the current trend is taking too many people.Mmmm maybe if we knew the cause of those accidents we could do something about it. Before you can solve a problem you have to identify the cause of the said problem.

There will always be the last few which take a detailed investigation, but we know enough about enough of them to reduce the current peak loading.

 

 

There will always be the last few which take a detailed investigation, but we know enough about enough of them to reduce the current peak loading.

That is good would you like to pass some of that privileged information on?

 

 

No, I walked away from that when Ed, who showed some positive intiative had the hatchet job done on him. The momentum among the board members currently doesn't even appear to be enough to elect a President let alone a full Executive, so it isn't worth wasting any more time on.

 

 

For you two who think it's funny, I don't see anything remotely funny in that

 

 

To a certain extent i agree with turbo. I personally dont need another dozen investigations to tell me that:-

 

1) flying vfr at night will kill you

 

2) flying too slow will kill you

 

3) turning back after EFATO will kill you

 

Etc etc.

 

However a change in culture so that i and others remember those things when we most need to remember them would be useful. Alternately we can simply keep count of those that forgot and therefore can be considered for a darwins award.

 

If someone can explain why intelligent humans who know this stuff get caught out time after time.......

 

I wonder if people who fly by choice are inherent risk takers who are prepared to always push the boundaries ( as compared to a similar sized set of folk who arent remotely interested in flying). Life insurance premiums and availability wouls suggest that at least the insurance companies think so.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy, Of course we are inherent risk takers.......I have been all my life, with skydiving before flying. And I don't regret one moment of it.

 

Those who can't handle the action when it comes, need to go back to the couch,....or, fly more often and keep their skills honed to a degree that keeps them prepared, and ready when things go sour. Our most dangerous aviator is the one who needs to wash off the cobwebs and dust from his machine, before he flys....they used to call it currency.....Flying is inherently dangerous, if you aren't comfortable with the risks, then move on....Maj...

 

 

Maj

 

Seems to me that many of those killed aren't "juniors" with low experience. That might be simply due exposure, more hours meaning more chances, or is it something else? In fact i really wonder if there is a magic bullet.....

 

So with what you've said, how will you as a potential board member be suggesting we address that?

 

Investigations produce data, i contend that in the main there isn't anything new there... So what steps will you be suggesting?

 

Andy

 

 

Andy, I wasn't suggesting at all that it is "juniors", in fact just the opposite, experienced pilots who fly infrequently. And what would I do ?......it is obvious we need timely accident data, how can we address problem areas if we don't know what they are !..This is a big point with me, and I do intend to put it on the table. This is valuable info being lost.

 

Having six full logbooks means nothing if you haven't flown in two years, your back to square one almost. A student wh just did his first two hours solo is safer than you are.

 

I would also like to see more scruteneering going on at BFR time, by examiners....regardless of TT experience or not. A simple check of one's logbook shows if you have done 10 hours in the last two years, or 200. The BFR should then be tailored accordingly. I know many instructors already do this. The guy with 10 hrs in the last two years needs to get the works, and nothing wrong with throwing the works at the experienced guy either, I wouldn't mind. This is a valuable opportunity by instructors to raise the currency bar a little.

 

I also believe that some accidents are caused by aircraft that are not in ok condition, or as they should be. Aircraft pulled out of a garage after 15 years for example, and killing someone on the next flight. Every time an aircraft is re-registered or changes owners a UACR is required to be completed by an L2. This really is a tick the box episode, and carries no guarantee of airworthiness, although many mistakenly think it does.

 

All liabilities aside, we need a proper airworthiness inspection at that time, with a sign off by a L2 or higher for the rego to be granted. If the owner is presented with a list of things to fix that is greater than the cost of the aircraft, then so be it. Maybe it is time for that machine to receive some serious work, or be retired permanently. I'd rather see that occur than having that sub-standard aircraft kill a new pilot down the road who thinks it's the greatest aeroplane ever constructed, and knows no better because he /she is new to the sport....additionally any engine failure should be actively investigated for a cause or continued trend, especially if they are re-occurring ......Maj...

 

 

And I might add also Andy that I hold absolutely no aspirations for any executive position such as president, secretary or treasurer. I am not a pilitical person,and I detest politics for politics sake, and those who insist in peddling it. Equally I detest cliques, and cliquey people. At best I would describe myself as a very listening independent. I do believe in utilising ones abilities, and I would be more suited lending a hand in operational areas, or areas of maintenance direction or control,or accident investigation/ prevention................Maj...

 

 

Has anyone here put in an incident report? and if so was there any obvious follow up by RAAus?...

I did a few years back. It took many months before my carefully-worded report appeared in the magazine, and in the meantime two people died from making the same dumb mistake I had owned up to. Why the delay? My report was diverted to the Ops manager, and missed at least two issues.

 

 

For you two who think it's funny, I don't see anything remotely funny in that

I think your post was funny because the reason you gave for not revealing the the information you claim to have was nonsense.

 

 

Andy, I wasn't suggesting at all that it is "juniors", in fact just the opposite, experienced pilots who fly infrequently. And what would I do ?......it is obvious we need timely accident data, how can we address problem areas if we don't know what they are !..This is a big point with me, and I do intend to put it on the table. This is valuable info being lost.Having six full logbooks means nothing if you haven't flown in two years, your back to square one almost. A student wh just did his first two hours solo is safer than you are.

I would also like to see more scruteneering going on at BFR time, by examiners....regardless of TT experience or not. A simple check of one's logbook shows if you have done 10 hours in the last two years, or 200. The BFR should then be tailored accordingly. I know many instructors already do this. The guy with 10 hrs in the last two years needs to get the works, and nothing wrong with throwing the works at the experienced guy either, I wouldn't mind. This is a valuable opportunity by instructors to raise the currency bar a little.

 

I also believe that some accidents are caused by aircraft that are not in ok condition, or as they should be. Aircraft pulled out of a garage after 15 years for example, and killing someone on the next flight. Every time an aircraft is re-registered or changes owners a UACR is required to be completed by an L2. This really is a tick the box episode, and carries no guarantee of airworthiness, although many mistakenly think it does.

 

All liabilities aside, we need a proper airworthiness inspection at that time, with a sign off by a L2 or higher for the rego to be granted. If the owner is presented with a list of things to fix that is greater than the cost of the aircraft, then so be it. Maybe it is time for that machine to receive some serious work, or be retired permanently. I'd rather see that occur than having that sub-standard aircraft kill a new pilot down the road who thinks it's the greatest aeroplane ever constructed, and knows no better because he /she is new to the sport....additionally any engine failure should be actively investigated for a cause or continued trend, especially if they are re-occurring ......Maj...

Surely your not suggesting an l2 airworthiness inspection every 12 months. I remember someone on this forum costing such an idea a few years ago and it was so over the top no one could afford it. You cannot do something like that in half measure as once the l2 puts his name to it his responsible. If such an idea gets up that's the end for me.

 

 

For my annual with my LAME we pull off all removable panels, use a bore scope to look into inaccessible places and check what seems to me to be everything. Check the pull on the sprag, blade angles bolt torques etc. all of this is specified in the maintenance manual and the Rotax manual. It cost me less than $1000 every 100 hours or annually. I think it is good value and a lot less than I would have paid to maintain a GA aircraft. I don't know what you mean by an L2 airworthiness inspection but it is hard to imagine it could be more thorough than this. I don't have a problem with anyone doing it themselves if they are competent, it would take about 10 hours I guess, but does anyone seriously suggest it is unnecessary? Flying is an expensive hobby, like sailing, like car racing. Perhaps there are people who shouldn't be flying if they can't make this commitment. Maybe rag and tube is cheaper to maintain, I have no experience of it. But GA is certainly a lot more expensive.

 

 

Money saved is inversely proportional to lives saved when it comes to safety.

 

How little is you life worth?

 

Do it right the first time and there will be subsequent times.....

 

 

MajSeems to me that many of those killed aren't "juniors" with low experience. That might be simply due exposure, more hours meaning more chances, or is it something else? In fact i really wonder if there is a magic bullet.....

 

So with what you've said, how will you as a potential board member be suggesting we address that?

 

Investigations produce data, i contend that in the main there isn't anything new there... So what steps will you be suggesting?

 

Andy

Everyone dies of something, maybe some of them just run out of days, while they are doing what they love. If they were surfing at the time, then surfing would make the news instaed.

 

 

The ones you want to avoid being involved with are those who die of negligence.

 

 

A previous employee of RAA wrote in the magazine some time ago that all aviation accidents are preventable in some way or form, which of course is plain bullsxxit & a useless statement. Such a condition would only occurr if all aircraft be it Airbus A380's or rag & tube aircraft were grounded around the world for ever, which is neither practical nor acceptable to the majority of the worlds population.

 

The recent appointment of a job for the boys as a Safety Officer within RAA will do bugger all to prevent accidents from occurring. At the end of the day it rests with each individual owner & pilot to take their own responsibility for each flight of their aircraft.

 

If any body thinks they have the magical answer to this world wide issue then they may wish to first pass their expert knowledge onto the Canadian aviation authorities about how the Boeing 777 crash could have been avoided.

 

 

A previous employee of RAA wrote in the magazine some time ago that all aviation accidents are preventable in some way or form ..

Absolutely true. Doesn't mean it is achievable.

 

If any body thinks they have the magical answer to this world wide issue then they may wish to first pass their expert knowledge onto the Canadian aviation authorities about how the Boeing 777 crash could have been avoided.

Which Canadian 777 accident? Perhaps we can discuss the above principle wrt this example.

T

 

Surely your not suggesting an l2 airworthiness inspection every 12 months. I remember someone on this forum costing such an idea a few years ago and it was so over the top no one could afford it. You cannot do something like that in half measure as once the l2 puts his name to it his responsible. If such an idea gets up that's the end for me.

Terry's, Did I at any stage suggest it be an annual requirement ?????....go back and read it again please. I was suggesting when the aircraft comes up for re-registration after being out of the system for some time, (de-registered) and when the aircraft changes hands, and the rego is transferred to a new owner. You have to get a UACR done at that time anyway ...it would be an appropriate time to do an airworthiness check. If the machine is in good shape and airworthy, then no drama...if it's not or requires serious and safety related work, then it needs to be done before somebody gets hurt................Maj...