What could ground the RAAus

[Spriteah]

Over the last twelve months there have been several threads indicating doom and gloom for the RAAus.

 

There were several suggestions we are in crisis, would be grounded, the new RPL will destroy us is the latest.

 

Although our office systems have not been upto scratch and we have encounter a higher than normal level of attention from CASA (which is not a bad thing) there is only one thing that I believe would cause the RAAus to lose its flying privileges. A high accident rate! If the membership is seen to be reckless and or dangerous then without doubt the federal politicians will become involved.

 

So with that in mind I urge all pilots and RAAus members to think safety in all their activities. To assist other members to keep safe. Always fly within our privileges and regulations.

 

As we come out of winter many pilots will not have flown much and the spider webs will be all over the plane.

 

If that is you consider doing a check flight or get an active pilot up with you. Go over your plane in detail. Replace fuel and oil. Ask for assistance.

 

Regards and safe flying,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

Vic RAAus rep.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Unfortunately, there is one engine manufacturer that IMO has made the accident rate higher than I believe it could be .

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Lets not turn this into a Rotax bashing exercise

 

Pilot error, loss of control and bad maintenance are all part of the safety picture

 

 

[dazza 38]

Lets not turn this into a Rotax bashing exercise Pilot error, loss of control and bad maintenance are all part of the safety picture

All very true. But the problem is going to be getting data that isn't corrupted. Just a guess, but I honestly think that a lot of engine failures and minor crashes have not been reported to the authorities. That is going to make it very difficult.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The ATSB have got that under control. The non-reporting of issues is an RAA cultural one.

 

 

[dazza 38]

The ATSB have got that under control. The non-reporting of issues is an RAA cultural one.

???? How do the ATSB have that under control ? They cannot police that every single person reports a failure or minor crash. Well they can in a populated area I guess with witnesses, but not out in the bush.

 

 

[DrZoos]

 

Have you read http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The Aviation Consumer - LSA Accidents.pdf

 

Seems to indicate perhaps they are not as bad as they are said to be. Im not saying either as i dont know. But you would think the statistics might reflect any major pattern??

 

In reading this one thing is obvious. Pilot error is the most significant factor, and RLOC are very significant.

 

65% off all accidents RLOC

 

Leaves 35% off accidents attributable to other factors....

 

And apparently landing speed is the major contributor to RLOC

 

Any factors in ourpopulation would be so statistically insignificant they wouldnt sway these stats by more then a minimal amount.

 

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Jabirus aren't big in the training field in the US, which is one reason for their low accident rate.

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

It seems that some people assume that if the engine of any aircraft stops then there will be an accident... this does not have to be the case.Lets face it if the engine stops , the wings don't fall off until you hit something on the ground! After I learnt to fly GA (when we did EFATOs and in flight failures) , I learnt on AUF/RAaus aricraft (Drifter and Thruster) I/we were all taught to fly as if the engine will stop not IF it will stop. If you always fly as if the engine will stop(usually on take off) - and you won't be surprised! (GA or RA Aus)

 

It seems also that from the article in The Aviation Consumer that most accidents were a result of Pilot error. It could be said that if you have an accident due engine stoppage through what ever reason then that could also be Pilot error.

 

It also follows that the larger the fleet of aircraft e.g Cessna 150 or Jabiru then the greater numbers will statistically have more recorded incidents..

 

If people are so worried about engines then perhaps they should do some gliding and learn to fly an aircraft that doesn't have an engine at all. Believe me it will improve your skills no end>>Lets not turn this whole RA AUs grounding/ATSB thing in to another excuse to have an engine bashing forum..

 

In the Aviation world globally, Pilot error and maintenance errors are the primary causes for accidents and incidents...

 

 

[XP503]

I agree Escarille, the training these days doesn't seem to focus so much on engine failures and having landing options at all times......

 

 

[DrZoos]

. It also follows that the larger the fleet of aircraft e.g Cessna 150 or Jabiru then the greater numbers will statistically have more recorded incidents.. .

. Exactly my point.

 

Yet as a proportion of accidents relative to other LSA aircraft based on each 100,000 flight hours they have come out roses.

 

So some of the questions that arise are:

 

Are Aussies a bunch of story tellers who embellish certain stories based on incorrect information

 

Or are the statistics wrong. Is there a major error in whats being reported as the cause of accidents and the brand of the plane involved in accidents. Perhaps they have lots of engine failures and nearly all are landed without accident and not reported.... Seems very unlikely, but could be the case...

 

Or is Australia a statistically significantly different population based on some variable like temperature, lack of maintenance, differing regulations or practices etc etc

 

As on face value it seems that what the alleged "j bashers" say is not backed up by the statistics. And even if the engine fails are not being recorded accurately, or they are being landed safely, then they are still a safe aircraft even with these alleged or real failures, compared to others. As they are being flown and landed safer then all other brands other the cessna with or without engine powered landings.

 

Whilst this probably raises more questions then it answers, it does indeed place some doubt as to the accuracy of the alleged anecdotal stories about a particular brands safety. Because the stats on a way bigger population then us, just dont support the stories / opinions / ?facts? Are the stories being embellished and exaggerated or are the numbers just plain wrong and unrepresentative of Australia.

 

Anyone thats dabbled in the study of statistics will know how incredibly difficult it is to have the results as wrong as some people suggest they might be.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

I agree Escarille, the training these days doesn't seem to focus so much on engine failures and having landing options at all times......

It does in my school, I can assure you. The average pre -solo student will do between 15-20 simulated failures at all heights to cct height and above. Another 10-15 as PFL's in the training area post solo as well.

And if they don't recite a pre take -off safety brief once taught they are almost guaranteed one!

 

 

[XP503]

Awesome Ballpoint. The way it should be.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

???? How do the ATSB have that under control ? They cannot police that every single person reports a failure or minor crash. Well they can in a populated area I guess with witnesses, but not out in the bush.

If the ATSB go directly to Rotax and Jabiru they will find out who's buying parts/engines. Shouldn't be too hard to build a detailed picture of what happening. All this stuff is tracked fairly precisely these days.

 

 

[jetjr]

Jabirus aren't big in the training field in the US, which is one reason for their low accident rate.

Results are also there per registration FT

 

 

[Bandit12]

.Whilst this probably raises more questions then it answers, it does indeed place some doubt as to the accuracy of the alleged anecdotal stories about a particular brands safety. Because the stats on a way bigger population then us, just dont support the stories / opinions / ?facts? Are the stories being embellished and exaggerated or are the numbers just plain wrong and unrepresentative of Australia.

 

Anyone thats dabbled in the study of statistics will know how incredibly difficult it is to have the results as wrong as some people suggest they might be.

I dabble in statistics a little....

 

Are the stories being embellished? No doubt some are, and some are also no doubt doing the rounds as hearsay and coming back much more dramatic than when originally told. Are the numbers just plain wrong and unrepresentative of Australia? There is probably a good argument to suggest that there is enough differences to question the generalisability of the data - such as the differences between LSA maintenance requirements and RA-Aus rego categories (and that is ignoring GA regoed aircraft).

 

There are a number of people here who I believe have shared very genuine stories of their own experiences with Jab engine failures. There are also a number of stories of incidents where occupants have walked away unharmed, supporting the stats above of low fatalities in Jabs (and the crashworthiness of the airframe design).

 

We face two intrinsic problems when it comes to accidents/incidents in Australia. Firstly, there seems to be little or no real data and reporting of incidents which would allow for real analysis of accident trends and correlates. Secondly, our flying population is so small that invariably you need many years of data to perform any real analysis, and that still may not offer an adequate sample size to look at accidents by specific make. So we have to rely on US data, and it is too big of a stretch to say that US data applies without a lot more proof. In another thread, I posted an analysis of fatality rates per 100K flying hours in Australia over a decade, and showed a statistically significant difference between GA and RA-Aus, with RA-Aus being twice the rate of GA. But with information so scant, the reasons why are just guesswork, not science.

 

 

[dazza 38]

If the ATSB go directly to Rotax and Jabiru they will find out who's buying parts/engines. Shouldn't be too hard to build a detailed picture of what happening. All this stuff is tracked fairly precisely these days.

Good Point.

 

 

[DrZoos]

If the ATSB go directly to Rotax and Jabiru they will find out who's buying parts/engines. Shouldn't be too hard to build a detailed picture of what happening. All this stuff is tracked fairly precisely these days.

Excellent point. But they would also need to do the same for the other main engine manufacturers. OR

To take this a step further they should then go to the people who bought the parts and ask exactly what happened and why they needed the parts. Perhaps a list of precise questions that have to be returned with a stat declaration. Ask specifically did they have an engine failure. Then if they did, ask exactly what happened.

 

That way we will also know the answer to whether the failures are not being reported.

 

One wonders whether the engine manufacturer should be obliged to do this and file a report regardless of whether the pilot filed a report or not. Seems like a reasonable step to require them to do so. RAAus should also require mandatory recording of these issues and they should be doing the above every 12 months

 

 

[dazza 38]

Another problem may be that vehicle engines converted for aviation use, will not have a paper trail when parts are bought to replace failed components. That data will not be available unless the pilot puts in a report .

 

 

[facthunter]

You might end up with so much paperwork the average person will go somewhere else. The SAAA is not happy all round with the BS. ( I am not an official spokesperson for them) Sorry but some of it is BS. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

I dabble in statistics a little....There is probably a good argument to suggest that there is enough differences to question the generalisability of the data - such as the differences between LSA maintenance requirements and RA-Aus rego categories (and that is ignoring GA regoed aircraft).

There may be differences, but unless there is actually a major difference like eg Rotax in all US model Jabirus, the volume of data from the US is so great that it is going to have eliminated most minor variable that could possibly show up in Australian data. eg: assume they have 240M people and we have 24 M just for ease of maths. They have 10 times our population. Then assume they have 10x the number of Jabirus flying and thus 10x the hours being flown and 10 x the accidents etc etc. From a statistical point of view it really doesnt matter whether they have 10x , 12x or 7x the data. What matters is that they have so many hours and incidents and lack of incidents being reported compared to us, that if we look at the sum total of US plus AU stats, our stats WILL NEVER be significant enough to sway these results, except for the fatalities section.

 

So we have to rely on US data, and it is too big of a stretch to say that US data applies without a lot more proof.

The US data for fatalities would not apply. But the data for incidents and causes would certainly be far more representative then non representative, unless someone can come up with a concrete example of a difference that makes the data void. eg using Rotax engines instead of Jabiru engines, or mandatory Ballistic Parachute Systems.

Our regs and maint schedules / requirements may produce reasons for slight variations in data between us and them, but they will never be able to sway that data by much at all. If we have an extra 2 accidents per 100,000 flight hours and they are 10 x our population of flight hours, then that will only produce (roughly speaking) 2/12ths difference in the data. So yes the data will be different, but the US data will still be very representative of us (speaking statistically only).

 

In another thread, I posted an analysis of fatality rates per 100K flying hours in Australia over a decade, and showed a statistically significant difference between GA and RA-Aus, with RA-Aus being twice the rate of GA. But with information so scant, the reasons why are just guesswork, not science.

This report from the US agrees the accident rates are higher. But 65% are RLOC. Not engine failures.One thing that can be categorically said from the data is this:

 

Even including the alleged, rumoured or real engine failures occurring in the US, Jabiru are still the 1st or 2nd safest LSA in the USA and that most are being landed without deaths or accidents. But this does not prove their are not lots of engine failures. It just proves that if they are occurring then the aircraft are being landed without accident.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

From memory, there are only about 110 Jabs registered LSA in the US. There are 5 incidents involving Jabirus on the NTSB database, only one a fatal.

 

 

[Bandit12]

There may be differences, but unless there is actually a major difference like eg Rotax in all US model Jabirus, the volume of data from the US is so great that it is going to have eliminated most minor variable that could possibly show up in Australian data. eg: assume they have 240M people and we have 24 M just for ease of maths. They have 10 times our population. Then assume they have 10x the number of Jabirus flying and thus 10x the hours being flown and 10 x the accidents etc etc. From a statistical point of view it really doesnt matter whether they have 10x , 12x or 7x the data. What matters is that they have so many hours and incidents and lack of incidents being reported compared to us, that if we look at the sum total of US plus AU stats, our stats WILL NEVER be significant enough to sway these results, except for the fatalities section.

That's a very flawed methodology - you NEVER add two different populations together unless you have a very solid theoretical belief that they are not intrinsically different. No researcher worth their salt would suggest that you could lump two different cultures, with different training, licencing, maintenance and regulatory standards together and say they are the same. Similar, but is similar good enough statistically? Analysis of the trends in US incidents is very useful, and there is much to learn. But generalising it to us and saying "because there is no problem with X over there, there must be no problem with X over here" is a weak argument. We can learn from their lessons, but need to start looking at our own more effectively.

 

The US data for fatalities would not apply. But the data for incidents and causes would certainly be far more representative then non representative, unless someone can come up with a concrete example of a difference that makes the data void. eg using Rotax engines instead of Jabiru engines, or mandatory Ballistic Parachute Systems.

Our regs and maint schedules / requirements may produce reasons for slight variations in data between us and them, but they will never be able to sway that data by much at all. If we have an extra 2 accidents per 100,000 flight hours and they are 10 x our population of flight hours, then that will only produce (roughly speaking) 2/12ths difference in the data. So yes the data will be different, but the US data will still be very representative of us (speaking statistically only).

You can't say that all the other US data applies, but the data on fatalities doesn't. Again, our data doesn't and shouldn't be trying to sway their data, as they shouldn't be put together. And is it enough to say that "our regs and maint schedules / requirements may produce reasons for slight variations"? In actual fact, that doesn't cut it in statistics and is a very unscientific way of trying to explain something. Without a systematic review of regs etc and proper analysis, they can't be discounted.

 

One thing that can be categorically said from the data is this:

Even including the alleged, rumoured or real engine failures occurring in the US, Jabiru are still the 1st or 2nd safest LSA in the USA and that most are being landed without deaths or accidents. But this does not prove their are not lots of engine failures. It just proves that if they are occurring then the aircraft are being landed without accident.

I don't have any evidence, but anecdotally that would seem to be the case in Australia too. Jab airframes seem to do very well from an occupant protection perspective.

 

Stats is a little more than a passing interest for me - I'm actually doing a PhD on psychometrics and statistical modelling in individual differences at the moment. I hope I don't come across as harsh or condescending, as it certainly isn't my intention. I deplore the state of incident reporting, data collection, and rigorous analysis (or lack thereof) in recreational aviation in Australia. Honestly, GA isn't much better, with some data being collected but only high school level analysis conducted. I can't remember the last time I read an article in one of the international aviation psych journals that actually had an Australian study, and given that you are twice as likely to die in an RA-Aus aircraft compared to a GA aircraft (based on 10 years of data, corrected for hours flown and comparable types/operations only), there are plenty of homegrown opportunities to improve the safety of our pastime sitting right under our noses. If only real data was collected......

 

 

[DrZoos]

From memory, there are only about 110 Jabs registered LSA in the US. There are 5 incidents involving Jabirus on the NTSB database, only one a fatal.

I dont think that could be the case. They have an accident rate of 3.5 per 100K hours so 5 accidents in 110 registrations just doesnt compute as a possibility.

That would be a 4.5% accident per aircraft and a much much lower accident rate per 100,000 flight hours.

 

Assuming each aircraft had 500 hours average it would produce a maximum of around 2.25 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

 

 

[metalman]

mmmm and this thread was about,,,,,er,,,mmm,,,,,oh yeh being a safe pilot,,,,,regardless of the aircraft wrapped around you ,,,and regardless of what makes the prop go round, being a safe pilot IS the bottom line, a plane doing an out landing where everyone walks away will always trump one where the body bags get a whirl! engines stop and it doesn't matter who makes them, some more than others but they all have the potential to fail, we on the other hand should have the skills to do the best out of a bad situation , as my instructor told me when doing PLF's ,,,"when the engine stops you are now having a f@@ked day, get over it and fly the plane"!

 

Matty