The fun is gone for me

[Teckair]

Thanks Richard and Don ... LOLUnfortunately I am told that far too often.

 

The trouble with being in any minority is you get outvoted. Maybe that is why I am such a pushy bugga LOL.

Yes but at least you are not one of the sheep.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yeah so hard to tell the difference.Who is the OP? I would not blame anyone for being annoyed with this situation. The AUF was formed for people who wanted affordable flying and 100 hourlies and all the rest of the stuff we have coming were not part of the equation.

Sorry - Original Poster

 

 

[turboplanner]

No confusion about working at heights, in QLD it is now any height where you aren't standing on the ground, it's utter crap. Nothing more than a money grab for "safety equipment" manufacturers. We're not even allowed to stand on a 3 step, stepladder while carrying out helicopter maintenance. I've had to use retractable harnesses while working on wings that try to pull you off the wing if you move, it get's even more complicated if you are using a crane and have several people on the job. Takes some choreography not to get tangled and trip someone up.

Well I agree, that's crazy

 

 

[bexrbetter]

This has nothing to do with what I like. This is the industry I work in. These are the statistics I've worked with all my life. The statistics I quoted come from the Chinese Government, not from me.If you want to disagree with the numbers and causes recorded by your government .

I can not believe anybody could have such a narrow mindset to believe in some numbers and not be interested in what creates those numbers rather than just spouting that his/her or mine lives are at greater risk based on them. I feel sorry for you that you would live your life like this. That goes some way to me understanding why you find no humour in my obvious (to some) humour about eating and sleeping.

 

Also, not my Government, I am a 5th Gen Australian, Germans, arrived 1840's, my families settled Tununda Valley area. But I do choose to live in China, 10 years now, and actually know what goes on here and know what goes on in Oz to be able to compare first hand the reasons behind those statistical figures which does not in anyway make it unsafer for me, or you, to drive a car here.

 

I think what Bex is saying is that the deaths per 100,000 people are acceptable because very few people can own a car (unless you are a blowin or a favorite of the party or the military) so the rate per 100,000 cars is illusory (at best) - the conjestion is so high that few people are killed in accidents but a lot die due to pollution.

 

I hope you're not being serious, Shirley ......

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Perhaps a major reason for the encroachment of crazy safety rules on our workplaces is insurance companies.

 

They don't take risks.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can not believe anybody could have such a narrow mindset to believe in some numbers and not be interested in what creates those numbers rather than just spouting that his/her or mine lives are at greater risk based on them.

This is what I said in post #86

 

"these are official figures which a number of countries share, and governments can drill down right to the individual event which caused each fatality."

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

No confusion about working at heights, in QLD it is now any height where you aren't standing on the ground, it's utter crap. Nothing more than a money grab for "safety equipment" manufacturers. We're not even allowed to stand on a 3 step, stepladder while carrying out helicopter maintenance. I've had to use retractable harnesses while working on wings that try to pull you off the wing if you move, it get's even more complicated if you are using a crane and have several people on the job. Takes some choreography not to get tangled and trip someone up.

I think that must be purely a RAAF requirement and it's certainly a lot stricter (and more stupid) than what is required in areas that the general public have access to.

 

The regulations for balustrades and most other construction matters are now fairly uniform throughout Australia, rather than being as State-specific as they used to be, and are found in the Building Code Australia (BCA), an extract of the balustrades requirements is pasted below from Vol 2 page 403. As you can see there is no requirement for any form of barrier if the fall is less than 1m, so a ute doesn't need any barriers. Also note that this is the requirement for areas of Public Access - building maintenance areas and working areas (loading a flat-bed semi for example) don't have any specific requirements except those provided for by the Company's operations manual.

 

Australian Building Codes Board Page 403

 

PART 3.9.2 BALUSTRADES

 

Appropriate Performance Requirements:

 

Where an alternative balustrade or other barrier is proposed as an Alternative Solution

 

to that described in Part 3.9.2, that proposal must comply with-

 

(a) Performance Requirement P2.1: and

 

(b) Performance Requirement P2.S.2: and

 

© the relevant Performance Requirements determined in accordance with 1.0.10.

 

Acceptable construction practice

 

3.9.2.1 Application

 

Compliance with this acceptable construction practice satisfies Performance Requirement

 

P2.5.2 for balustrades or other barriers.

 

3.9.2.2 When balustrades or other barriers are required

 

(a) A continuous balustrade or other barrier must be provided along the side of any

 

roof to which public access is provided, any stairway or ramp, any floor, corridor,

 

hallway, balcony, deck, verandah, mezzanine, access bridge or the like and along

 

the side of any delineated path of access to a building, if-

 

(i) it is not bounded by a wall; and

 

(ii) its level above the surface beneath, is more than-

 

(A) 4 m where it is possible for a person to fall through an openable

 

window; or

 

(8) 1 m in any other case (see Figure 3.9.2.3).

 

(b) The requirements of (a) do not apply 10-

 

(i) areas referred to in 3.9.1.2(b); or

 

(ii) a retaining wall unless the retaining wall forms part of, or is directly

 

associated with a delineated path of access to a building from the road, or a

 

delineated path of access between buildings.

 

Explanatory Information:

 

It is deemed possible for a person to fall through an openable window when a 125 mm

 

sphere is able to pass through the window opening.

 

Nec 2012 Building Code of Australia· Volume Two 3.9.2.2

 

 

[M61A1]

I think that must be purely a RAAF requirement and it's certainly a lot stricter (and more stupid) than what is required in areas that the general public have access to.The regulations for balustrades and most other construction matters are now fairly uniform throughout Australia, rather than being as State-specific as they used to be, and are found in the Building Code Australia (BCA), an extract of the balustrades requirements is pasted below from Vol 2 page 403. As you can see there is no requirement for any form of barrier if the fall is less than 1m, so a ute doesn't need any barriers. Also note that this is the requirement for areas of Public Access - building maintenance areas and working areas (loading a flat-bed semi for example) don't have any specific requirements except those provided for by the Company's operations manual.

 

Australian Building Codes Board Page 403

 

PART 3.9.2 BALUSTRADES

 

Appropriate Performance Requirements:

 

Where an alternative balustrade or other barrier is proposed as an Alternative Solution

 

to that described in Part 3.9.2, that proposal must comply with-

 

(a) Performance Requirement P2.1: and

 

(b) Performance Requirement P2.S.2: and

 

© the relevant Performance Requirements determined in accordance with 1.0.10.

 

Acceptable construction practice

 

3.9.2.1 Application

 

Compliance with this acceptable construction practice satisfies Performance Requirement

 

P2.5.2 for balustrades or other barriers.

 

3.9.2.2 When balustrades or other barriers are required

 

(a) A continuous balustrade or other barrier must be provided along the side of any

 

roof to which public access is provided, any stairway or ramp, any floor, corridor,

 

hallway, balcony, deck, verandah, mezzanine, access bridge or the like and along

 

the side of any delineated path of access to a building, if-

 

(i) it is not bounded by a wall; and

 

(ii) its level above the surface beneath, is more than-

 

(A) 4 m where it is possible for a person to fall through an openable

 

window; or

 

(8) 1 m in any other case (see Figure 3.9.2.3).

 

(b) The requirements of (a) do not apply 10-

 

(i) areas referred to in 3.9.1.2(b); or

 

(ii) a retaining wall unless the retaining wall forms part of, or is directly

 

associated with a delineated path of access to a building from the road, or a

 

delineated path of access between buildings.

 

Explanatory Information:

 

It is deemed possible for a person to fall through an openable window when a 125 mm

 

sphere is able to pass through the window opening.

 

Nec 2012 Building Code of Australia· Volume Two 3.9.2.2

No, I work as a civilian, this has come directly from our workplace health and safety person, quoting it as legislation, to be fair I have not viewed this "legislation", and knowing the clowns in charge, it would not surprise me if it were their own arxe covering conservative interpretation, of something completely different.

The military requirements are different, but they are moving in the same direction, god help us in a war.

 

 

[M61A1]

Just googled the "code of practice" for managing falls, they no longer specify a height, just any time someone is at risk of a fall from one level to another.

 

I have been required in the past to use fall bags (now there's a worthless invention) while tying a Kiowa to a semi.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I have been required in the past to use fall bags (now there's a worthless invention) while tying a Kiowa to a semi.

Now I'm really beginning to doubt this. I used to fly Jetrangers and they're pretty much a Kiowa, and I can tell you there's no way a Kiowa can lift a semi!

 

 

[M61A1]

Now I'm really beginning to doubt this. I used to fly Jetrangers and they're pretty much a Kiowa, and I can tell you there's no way a Kiowa can lift a semi! [ATTACH=full]28685[/ATTACH]

Try thinking about it the other way round, clever trousers. We were trucking some off to storage.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Gee what a great idea LSA and the rest of the crap is.

The AUF was formed for people who wanted affordable flying and 100 hourlies and all the rest of the stuff we have coming were not part of the equation.

I'd like to agree with you completely Tek, and as you know I'm a strong supporter of the 'earlier code' but much as I'd like to blame everything on the GA fraternity taking over 'our' ultralight organisation it just wasn't quite like that.

 

Sure, a lot of GA pilots came into ultralights to be able to keep flying but no-one can blame them for that, we'll all face health issues as we age and I'm sure I'd be just as keen to find ways to keep flying as they are, BUT -

 

Quite aside from the GA infiltration we, the ultralight flyers, wanted to fly higher and we wanted to cross roads, there was always going to be a penalty to pay for those extra freedoms because it brought us into contact with the general public. In fact it wasn't much of a penalty at that stage, that was when 95.10 Issue 2 came out IIRC.

 

The next notable thing to happen was that virtually everyone wanted to go a bit faster than the early 115kg planes were safely capable of so we started pushing for a weight increase, we got that but again there was a price to pay. Issues 3 -5.

 

The real humdinger, though, was that virtually everyone wanted a two seater and that's when the can of worms was opened. It's not just the extra weight or the extra power required, or the extra speed, it's the liability issue of carrying a third party.

 

OK, it could be said that the current single seaters shouldn't have to have the same servicing and documentation requirements as two seaters since they're not carrying pax - and that probably is a valid point - but at what cost in reduction of freedoms? Would single seater flyers be willing to go back to flying the paddock, don't cross roads, stay below 300ft? I don't think so, I remember the day we got the height increase to 5000ft and that was worth a national public holiday to most of us, we could finally go places ...

 

Really, if you've built your plane you can service it, and always will be able to, if you haven't it really shouldn't be a big deal to have someone cast their eye over it once a year. The rego costs aren't that bad, less than a fishing licence in some places and no more than boat rego and a lot less than car rego, and that brings some insurance cover with it, which the others don't. There's no free lunch unfortunately and I don't think we can expect costs and red tape to stay the same while the rest of the world goes mad with litigation fever. The best policy for us all might be to lobby the government for legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

 

 

[M61A1]

No they're not, you have 4.5 times more chance of being killed in a car than I do, the statistics are per 100,000 vehicles, and food........I wouldn't have quoted that one.

Stats like that assume that every driver is the same, which they aren't, many of them die doing stupid things regardless of laws and standards, sometimes that includes not looking out for other drivers trying to kill you. In 30 years of operating a motor vehicle, only once have I experienced an event when there was absolutely nothing I could do to improve my situation. He stats only average out the competent and the incompetent.

 

 

[Guernsey]

No, but if they had of been they would have been more likely to not need to go around in the first place. In the event of a go around they would have been more likely to be able to out climb the Ferris wheel. If all that failed it would have been far more likely they would be able to see the Ferris wheel before they hit it and therefore be able to avoid it. Gee what a great idea LSA and the rest of the crap is.

You are correct Teckair and the reason I said 'yes' it could have been a GA pilot is because it could have been me. I have been a GA pilot and Ultralight pilot for many years and for the reasons you give above I am sure that I could have avoided the Ferris Wheel in any of my ultralights.

 

Alan.

 

 

[facthunter]

You need a Jump Bear protection cage. They are really dangerous especially early in the morning. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

.

 

Really, if you've built your plane you can service it, and always will be able to, if you haven't it really shouldn't be a big deal to have someone cast their eye over it once a year.

I have no problem with planned maintenance, in fact it's already mandatory, I just want to be allowed to do it myself, as I've gone to the trouble of educating myself on such matters. The noises I've heard about it having to be a third party, are what I find a concern.

 

 

[David Isaac]

You are correct Teckair and the reason I said 'yes' it could have been a GA pilot is because it could have been me. I have been a GA pilot and Ultralight pilot for many years and for the reasons you give above I am sure that I could have avoided the Ferris Wheel in any of my ultralights.Alan.

You could have seen it only because the visibility is better than any typical GA/LSA. The climb angle and position of the Ferris wheel probably made the Ferris Wheel out of sight range at that time.

 

 

[gandalph]

Yes you are but you obviously don't like it.There are significant reasons why there's a high fatality rate on the roads here that are not detailed in a statistic and none of them have a bearing on me or put me at any greater risk than driving in Oz, in fact driving in the cities here is a damn sight safer as they (frustratingly) all potter around at 30-40kmh usually.

Safer there (China) than here????? Sure as heck must have changed in the last 4 years then. Our 8 week trip through China, being driven by "professional'" drivers was like one loooooong carnival ride. Breathtaking. We survived with out serious injury or incident but WOW! the number of near misses.............

 

 

[Powerin]

We would all like to go back to "simpler" times. I would love to go back to farming in the same times as the early days of the AUF when I could just load my cattle on a truck and take them to market (for example).

 

Today our cattle are legally required to have expensive electronic ID tags. These tags are scanned all through the sale and production chain and cattle are randomly tested for chemical residues. The slightest chemical contamination or disease can be traced straight back to my farm and I am legally responsible for that contamination. Any chemicals I use on my cattle (for worms or lice etc) or on my crops that cattle might eat of course have to be exhaustively tested and approved. All chemical applications and weather conditions have to be recorded and are audited. Each chemical has a different active life (after which residues fall below a safe limit) which also has to be tracked and recorded. When the cattle are sold I fill in a legal form in triplicate to say my cattle are fit for sale and free from chemical residues. All this is expensive and time consuming.

 

Hands up all those who would be more comfortable eating beef from the 1980s without the safeguards.

 

Aviation is no different. We live in different times....

 

 

[turboplanner]

Stats like that assume that every driver is the same, which they aren't, many of them die doing stupid things regardless of laws and standards, sometimes that includes not looking out for other drivers trying to kill you. In 30 years of operating a motor vehicle, only once have I experienced an event when there was absolutely nothing I could do to improve my situation. He stats only average out the competent and the incompetent.

A large amount of data is collected for each fatality, and that shows the differences; that number still died per 100,000 vehicles regardless.

 

That comprehensive data can be shaved in dozens of ways - date, time, visibility, road surface, road identification, road class, age, medical, driving history, alcohol history, sex, vehicle size, make, mechanical condition, tyre brand, condition and dozens of other things, so depending whether you want to design a new car or a new road or manage driver behaviour, you will be looking for different things.

 

A group I'm involved in are looking at figures where Police have been running campaigns on speed, mobile phone use, to see whether the political climate tends to force these three items to a higher level than they deserve, and so on.

 

The finished profiles are endless, but now and again a combination of factors jumps out and provides an opportunity to take some action to reduce the toll

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

You could have seen it only because the visibility is better than any typical GA/LSA. The climb angle and position of the Ferris wheel probably made the Ferris Wheel out of sight range at that time.

If the pilot's field of view over the nose is such that he cannot see objects in his flight path when on an obstacle-clearance climb (i.e. climb at minimum airspeed), that says something pretty serious about the basic design on the aircraft.

 

 

[David Isaac]

If the pilot's field of view over the nose is such that he cannot see objects in his flight path when on an obstacle-clearance climb (i.e. climb at minimum airspeed), that says something pretty serious about the basic design on the aircraft.

Daffyd,

Bit harsh mate ... Have you not experienced an obstacle clearance speed takeoff in any of C180, 182, 185, 206. Your field of view is very limited and you have to be particularly vigilant. Are you suggesting that Cessna's design in this case is poor?

 

I was always taught during my GA training to lower the nose occasionally on any climb out and look side to side for other aircraft all due to limited viz on climb out in the single engine C series. But of course you cannot lower the nose on the initial obstacle clearance climb out which incidentally is only 62 knots in a C180, 182 at MTOW.

 

 

[M61A1]

A large amount of data is collected for each fatality, and that shows the differences; that number still died per 100,000 vehicles regardless.That comprehensive data can be shaved in dozens of ways - date, time, visibility, road surface, road identification, road class, age, medical, driving history, alcohol history, sex, vehicle size, make, mechanical condition, tyre brand, condition and dozens of other things, so depending whether you want to design a new car or a new road or manage driver behaviour, you will be looking for different things.

 

A group I'm involved in are looking at figures where Police have been running campaigns on speed, mobile phone use, to see whether the political climate tends to force these three items to a higher level than they deserve, and so on.

 

The finished profiles are endless, but now and again a combination of factors jumps out and provides an opportunity to take some action to reduce the toll

It would be nice to see the real stats about the "speed kills" issue, I suspect they would be a lot lower than they make out, as far as mobile phones go it wouldn't surprise me if they were a major cause of distraction, but, I suspect that it's worse since it was made illegal, inasmuch as they drive worse when they try to hide it than they do if they just do it openly. I would also love to know just how many they've killed by forcing them to drive slowly. Regardless of rest, people become distracted and complacent when they are not stimulated.

 

 

[SDQDI]

It would be nice to see the real stats about the "speed kills" issue, I suspect they would be a lot lower than they make out, as far as mobile phones go it wouldn't surprise me if they were a major cause of distraction, but, I suspect that it's worse since it was made illegal, inasmuch as they drive worse when they try to hide it than they do if they just do it openly. I would also love to know just how many they've killed by forcing them to drive slowly. Regardless of rest, people become distracted and complacent when they are not stimulated.

Texting is the worst talking is still bad but texting is suicidal. Speeding makes accidents worse but isn't very often the main cause.

 

I've posted this before but ill repeat it if my memory serves me correctly. We had a talk given to us by one of the police in the Crash investigation unit and he listed the main cause of accidents as

 

1. Inattention (Mobile phones are a part of this but also includes other distractions)

 

2.fatigue

 

3. alcohol and drugs

 

4 and 5 are mechanical and speeding my memory is getting a bit foggy as to which one is which

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Daffyd,Bit harsh mate ... Have you not experienced an obstacle clearance speed takeoff in any of C180, 182, 185, 206. Your field of view is very limited and you have to be particularly vigilant. Are you suggesting that Cessna's design in this case is poor?

I was always taught during my GA training to lower the nose occasionally on any climb out and look side to side for other aircraft all due to limited viz on climb out in the single engine C series. But of course you cannot lower the nose on the initial obstacle clearance climb out which incidentally is only 62 knots in a C180, 182 at MTOW.

Yes, I am. The field of view out of a high wing Cessna is like sitting in a letterbox, looking out the slot. OK, I've been spoiled by flying the Seabird Seeker, but the reality is that the top of the instrument panel coaming in the Cessna line is much higher than it needs to be; not sure why they did that, maybe to give it an "airliner" feel (in the DC 6 era). That's a "fashion" - quite a lot of aircraft layouts have "stylist" features that really do not make sense. It was even worse when the things had radial engines - at least straight ahead. The situation can be improved considerably by Fowler flaps, used at a "takeoff" setting, but it's dire with zero flap in an obstacle-clearance climb.