RA Investigated Accidents

[Old Koreelah]

I recall notifying RAAus of two incidents in which I was involved, (non injury incidents) and after waiting some months, found a barely recognisable "report' in the RAAus magazine. There were none of my words used. I only recognised the text as referring to my notifications by the aircraft type and the basic nature of what I had reported. Nobody reading it would have been able to learn from my errors, nor even been able to recognise the event. There was nothing in my words which were likely to bring about litigious reactions from any person. So I can assume that there is a whole story hidden behind each and every incident reported. It would be productive if something in the nature of the air safety digest (without prejudice, etc) could be instigated so that the lessons are not lost. If there are good reports created by RAAus, then it is in the interests of all for these reports to be openly available.

Your experience is not unique, Pete. I sent in a contribution to Pilot Notes many months ago. I have been told that it was referred to our Ops. manager and so missed the next publishing deadline. After a couple more months of waiting my enquiries resulted in a promise that it would be in the next mag. It missed that one too, and I was most recently promised it would make Nov or Dec mag.

 

Unless there was a need to abbreviate, I cannot understand why your words were not used (your post is more articulate than some magazine articles).

 

I realise the complexity and time frames involved in paper publishing, but we need to ensure the report gets to the widest readership fast, so that lessons are learned and lives are saved.

 

 

[68volksy]

At the crux of the matter is RA-Aus's mandate to provide a cheaper, more affordable form of aviation. As such we do without many of the things the GA spectrum takes for granted.

 

The simplest reason RA-Aus do not investigate accidents (and in my opinion why they never should) is the whole basis of the RA-Aus system - "Fly at your own risk". If any efforts are to be expended in this area they should be firmly focused on educating the members and the general public about this fact in my view.

 

Another prime reason is the simple fact that a reliable (let alone thorough) paper trail does not exist for many RA-Aus aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You just cooked the Minister for Transport if that was true Volksy;he's allowing it to happen and its his duty of care that safe systems are in place and one of those safe systems is an effective learning regime from accidents to ensure a reducing level.

 

 

[68volksy]

I keep going back to the basics of the whole RA-Aus institution. The Minister outlined what he considered to be acceptable levels of risk for the organisation (2 seats, weight limits, no crashing into populated areas etc.). Then it was handed over to RA-Aus to "Self-regulate". If the members of RA-Aus want accident reports then we'll have to stump up the funds ourselves. Alternatively fly GA where anything and everything is covered and highly regulated. I don't know why so many people want more regulation in RA-Aus - it's reinventing the wheel when GA has 100 years of knowledge and information behind it. In my view RA-Aus needs to go the other way and draw a very firm line in the sand with the aircraft and pilots that should be in GA and the aircraft and pilots that should be in RA. My opinion is they need to step away from trying to do more and focus on doing what they can in the very best manner. I think weight limits are pretty much redundant nowadays - anyone can make a 2 seat aircraft underneath the weight limit (it'll probably just fall apart in flight). I think that's evidenced by the plethora of RA-Aus aircraft options available at the moment. The many options available go a long way to contributing to the paperwork burden that RA-Aus is currently experiencing no doubt.

 

CASA on behalf of the Minister instigated various minimum record-keeping requirements and the rest has been left up to RA-Aus. The recent troubles are because those minimums have not even been attained. For me it's clear that a lot of the trouble for RA-Aus has arisen due to the influx of RA-Aus pilots from the GA spectrum. These pilots have an entirely different background and perception than the RA-Aus founders with their simple rag and tube.

 

Anyone else like the soapbox now I'm done?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I keep going back to the basics of the whole RA-Aus institution. The Minister outlined what he considered to be acceptable levels of risk for the organisation (2 seats, weight limits, no crashing into populated areas etc.). Then it was handed over to RA-Aus to "Self-regulate". If the members of RA-Aus want accident reports then we'll have to stump up the funds ourselves...Anyone else like the soapbox now I'm done?

You make a lot of sense, but I want it all- less regulation AND more safety. There must be a way of finding out the probable causes of accidents and quickly disseminating that info. We may grumble about the rising cost of beer, fuel and insurance, but we pay it anyway. In the scheme of things, our type of flying is very cheap, so I would not mind paying a little more to find out something which may save my life.

 

 

[winsor68]

IMO you can have both with a proper structure. The whole point is "Self-regulation"... It seems to me that the whole agenda was hijacked by a self interested group who saw the possibility of a "New GA"... I am guessing CASA never intended to hand control of this over to the AUF. Just my opinion but I personally find it sad to have seen in my eyes a rapid decline over the last several years in Ultralight flying in Australia.

 

 

[djpacro]

Certified production aircraft (including LSA) are accompanied by the manufacturer's obligation for support of continued airworthiness so any problems with the type should be addressed including notification to operators. As for pilots, "we" just have the same old causes for accidents.

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/atsb-launches-safety-watch-for-ga

 

 

[Omarflying1]

I imagine this thread is long expired but I have just become aware that one of the casualties might have been an old friend of mine. If anyone has any further info - or advice as to where I could find some - I would be grateful. I believe my friend used to participate here with the member name browng.

 

 

[Downunder]

Yes, it was him. As a fellow pilot in WA, I communicated with him on this forum briefly.

 

I believe he was an english immigrant.

 

[/url]https://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/it-is-with-sadness.3045/

 

 

[Omarflying1]

Yes, that's him. I hadn't seen him for decades, but we were close friends in the UK in the seventies and early eighties. I was really shocked to hear how he died. Thanks for replying and if you come across anyone who knew him personally, I would love to hear more about his later life.