Admin Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Attached is a synopsis of the minutes from the RAAus February 2011 Board Meeting for RAAus members Synopsis Minutes Board Meeting Feb 2011.pdf Synopsis Minutes Board Meeting Feb 2011.pdf Synopsis Minutes Board Meeting Feb 2011.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest burbles1 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Thankyou so much Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Many thanks for posting the minutes Ian. I would also like to see RA AUS aircraft accident summaries published in a simillar way to the ATSB reports. It was mentioned some years back that RA AUS would publish accident reports in issues of the Monthly magazine. I think from memory that only two or three were ever published. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 The problem with publishing accident information is tied up with how they are investigated. The Police have the responsibility and we are only used as a source of information although the really bad part is that we get involved in "coronial inquests" where the RAAus has to answer very searching questions. The time element is the problem as you can't print anything till the process is over. ( Can take years so we miss out on stuff that could be valuable from a safety standpoint). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest burbles1 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 There is a way that you can report on legal matters that have not yet been determined - court reporters do it all the time with judicious use of "allegedly" and similar wording, which ensures that any reporting, from a legal standpoint, does not pre-empt outcomes or bias any proceedings. I think especially so that any safety-related issues arising from accidents, which are always of interest to pilots, must be made known in a generic context without prejudicing the course of legal proceedings. As long as we avoid defamatory, libellous or discriminatory accusations, I think we'd be safe in releasing generic information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I am sure Steve Bell would do what he can, but I am equally sure that you are very limited. The reports that have come out in the past are a littrle sanitised. I agree that we need good incident/accident reporting. I think everyone want's it, except perhaps some of the participants occasionally. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Accident summaries are published in the magazine. If you want a full report you must wait until due process has been served especially when a fatality is involved. The RAAus must i believe as 'duty of care' make available the full and final report to members via a seperate members only publication either every 6 months or anually. They should also be forwarded to the ATSB for publishing along with GA and commercial reports. This way statistics will be a little more accruate overall. I do not believe the full report should be published in the mag or online where the public or press have access to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I tried to track down the process a year or so ago. We have a two edged sword in that we don't have a formal obligation to investigate accidents. They are investigated by police using the same State system which investigates any other injury or fatality, such as road accidents. RAAus can be called in for expert advice, but have no control over the process. The police unfortunately do not issue a final report, like the ATSB do, so we don't get to learn the lessons which would allow us to avoid repeating the mistakes. Sometimes astute Journalists get an explanation out of police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 we should have as much detail of every incident published? RAA pilots are at much higher risk than GA pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I think people at the top are aware of this. The passing on data on bad practices, mechanical failures etc.is essential to an improved safety situation. NOBODY would argue with this. We have an obvious duty of care here and some way must be found to get around the constraints that apply. Perhaps CASA could indemnify us and find a way to do it. The job should be done by them otherwise. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I maintain that $13,000 is not a lot to spend on a good website and $13,000 to effectively communicate with your members is not a lot of money in a $2M organisation. I reckon we'll get quite a reasonable basic website out of it that we can then later decide how to keep moving forward with it. Brian Bigg doing the magazine, I reckon that's great news; he does a good job with AOPA and is a pilot himself to boot. Goodbye and good riddance to the RV7 and Mk26 Spitfire. I regret for their owners they now have to deal with CASA, but rules are rules. I'd love to see government policy separating personal and commercial aviation on something other than a weight figure and to make it easier and more affordable to fly larger aircraft personally, but trying to sneak them into RA-Aus is not the way to go about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 The police unfortunately do not issue a final report But coroners do, don't they? But it's a shame thats only in the fatal cases. And even then there are plenty where they can not be bothered, it seems. (WA SportStar fatality, anyone?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I have been reading about RAAus members being trained in accident investigation i believe, does this mean that somewhere along the line the RAAus will be responsible for investigating and submiiting reports on their findings. How do the police do it now? As per a non fatel road accident? How can they show that it may be caused by pilot not adhering to op regs or other that are outside their general knowledge base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I agree, it would be good to get some information on incidents in a more timely manner. I was interested in a Sting 2000 at one time and tried to find out about a crash that tragically killed two very experienced pilots near Goulburn. The Rotax engine failed but you would have expected the pilots to be able to get the plane on the ground without fatalities. The whole incident got caught up in law suits and it is very difficult to find out what went wrong. BR. Slightly off the main subject, but ............... that accident was discussed in detail on this forum 12 - 24 months ago and the only data available centred around the Coroner's Report, which included a lot of detail, and was scathing re a number of issues. Suggest you search it here or on the Coroner's website. Hope that helps Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Bas, the Cornoers reports should be available, so maybe that's an opportunity for RAAus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I think there are legal issues resulting from it currently before the court so you are restricted again. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Wow, did the Coroner give ************** a serve or what?How on Earth can he still be in business after what the Coroner said of his business ethics? Probably best not to respond to the above and leave them as rhetorical questions . . . Blackrod, save me having to google it....do you have a link to the report? Im up for a chuckle or two tonight Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I am not happy at the requirement for an annual review to allow over 75's to carry passengers. I cannot see that age is a major prooblem for passenger carrying. What is likely to cause a problem? If it is a medical condition, then a more stringent requirement for medicals would be appropriate, but as it stands it seems that RAAus considers we are mentally incapable of flying when we get to 75. Personally I consider I am just as safe as some of the much younger pilots who take passengers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owi Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Yenn, I'm also a "youngster" and I fully support your view. I think that the ruling was not properly thought out. A more stringent medical check is far more valid than checking whether you still know how to fly. Unless, of course, you develop alzheimer's suddenly and forget which way the throttle works! Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Another little money grab via those with a 'vested interest' maybe.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Sting crash link Andy http://www.recreationalflying.com/attachments/smith-and-guthrie-finding-final-doc.7159/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Ozzie, no it's a bit of looking to have done something. I opposed it totally for the same reason as Yenn alludes to. Even after having done an extra check and having little working brain matter, as you would exhibit if you did downwind landings, why would you not continue doing downwind landings? You've still got the same brain. It's flagrantly discriminatory on age. I think it's even possible for young people to do downwind landings and muck them up. Just keep CASA happy and all will be just fine. This is nanny state stuff. retricting the freedoms/privileges of a large number of people for the transgressions of a few is not clever. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 ....... Not much to laugh about in a Coroners Report. Yeah that was a bit insensitive.... Apology's to anyone offended. the chukle I was talking about was of course thesubset to do with Mr *********, the wider report of course is not a laughing matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Then you had better get as old as possible as quickly as possible while it's happening. I don't want to keep all the privileges to myself. I'm a while off yet but I still thought there was a principle involved. "Make sure that the little end of the windsock is pointing at you when you land." Write that out 100 ( one hundred) times before you leave the clubroom. Each year that you are over 75 you double the number of lines. That should fix it. I'll teach you buggers to get old and want to fly. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 There's a few for sure. we even have instructors who are 84 plus. You should do the SAME as any other pilot unless you have some medical problem, and that should be sorted out on an individual basis, or have demonstrated some lack of competance. It's a one size fits all (over 75) solution. It doesn't guarantee any certain outcome. It costs more to comply with. It IS discriminatory, no one could deny that. It's the sort of bullshat that grounded Bob Hoover in the USA, when the FAA took his licence from him because the greedy american co-pilots voted to bring a compulsory "retire at 60'"rule, for ALL airline pilots, and Bob got caught up in the aftermath. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now