turboplanner Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I was wondering if you could tell me the last time ,if ever anyone other than the pilot or passenger was killed by an raa plane ,and which school or kindy or shop etc that a raa plane has crashed into resulting in others deaths please ,,thanks As other dangerous sporting activities have a big record of these sorts of accidents,where others are killed or injured that are not involved in that sport,,ie:jet skis have killed many poor swimmers ,rally cars have taken out spectators ,motorcross has taken out crowds etc etc etc ,can you justify your statement with factual evidence and cases , and tell me why these other DANGEROUS activities are not banned or stopped {grounded} The other sports all have their regular discussions about the deaths in their sport or industry. Some are addressing is very well, some are tying hard but not quite getting to the improvement stage, some couldn't care which is leading to Government action on their activities. The whole point about the effort made to improve safety is you don't want to reach the point where the first RAA aircraft takes out a Dash 8 full of people, or hits a polulated area - then your friends, the Daily Press, who some people on here have made antagonising an art form will start to prod the politicians, ad it will come down the line like a bushfire. Apart from that, what about the children who have been killed, what about innocent passengers, what about pilots who leave behind dependants, what about pilots who have been illegally conducting commercial activities and kill paying passengers. Andy has spelled out the numbers going down; this isn't something to be ignored; this just might be the bad old days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafs64 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 if you watch the news. you will notice that they throw in that the incident happened two blocks from a school. or kinder garden. or coffee shop or on the ground. they will milk and have no care who it affects 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 If the aircraft or pilot are attached to RAAus we offer to assist. There are many NSW Police who have also completed RAAus investigators consultant course themselves. Although not in policy we are cautious not to become involved in every crash when the aircraft and pilot are not connected to our association. It is hard for us to justify spending members money assisting with an investigation when it is not directly linked to RAAus. It then falls to the regulator.Regards, Jim Tatlock. That is problematic, since this form of aircraft exists due to an arrangement where RAA is seen to control it by self regulation. I've wrestled with this myself in the past, but it seems that the self regulator will carry the legal responsibility if there is a lawsuit. That's where a compliance and enforcement section manned by volunteers comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spriteah Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 That is problematic, since this form of aircraft exists due to an arrangement where RAA is seen to control it by self regulation.I've wrestled with this myself in the past, but it seems that the self regulator will carry the legal responsibility if there is a lawsuit. That's where a compliance and enforcement section manned by volunteers comes in. I am comfortable that raaus is acting within its legal requirements. We do not self regulate. We self administer. This isn't really the thread for this discussion. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 We have already seen the lengths they are prepared to go to with the Jabiru issue, and many people would support that stand ....... Bob Bob, I assume you are referring to the Jabiru engine, if so, I see that issue completely different to the accidents that are occurring..... The engine issue applied to multiple aircraft, whereas, each accident has it`s own set of circumstances. Regardless of how well meaning everyone is, me included, about continuing to to stress the safety message, the fact is, the high percentage of accidents are occurring to trained adults, some with a huge amount of experience, not some young guy, with very little experience! There`s been a couple of those also but that`s not my point, the point is, adults should be capable of making their own decisions and wearing the consequences! I sincerely hope CASA acts accordingly and I believe they should, after all! There are two men in CASA positions, who came from an AUF/RA-Aus background. Lea Ungerman, (Spelling?) was instructing with an Ultralight aircraft, when I was instructing. If I recall accurately, it was a Thruster. Frank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I am comfortable that raaus is acting within its legal requirements. We do not self regulate. We self administer. This isn't really the thread for this discussion. Jim. OK, self administering - at the point of action. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I was wondering if you could tell me the last time ,if ever anyone other than the pilot or passenger was killed by an raa plane ,and which school or kindy or shop etc that a raa plane has crashed into resulting in others deaths please ,,thanks As other dangerous sporting activities have a big record of these sorts of accidents,where others are killed or injured that are not involved in that sport,,ie:jet skis have killed many poor swimmers ,rally cars have taken out spectators ,motorcross has taken out crowds etc etc etc ,can you justify your statement with factual evidence and cases , and tell me why these other DANGEROUS activities are not banned or stopped {grounded} You've completely misconstrued my point. Perception is everything. It crashed metres away from a swag of people having lunch. That is more than enough for the public, and therefore the authorities, to conclude that it was a significant risk to public safety. If you don't believe me, there's nothing I can do about that. Let's just go about business as usual then. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Bull Aviation is not dangerous if it is done correctly, aviation leaves no room for error and does not tolerate fools for very long. Understand your aircraft Learn what physics and aerodynamics make it fly and what stops it flying Don't show off and do beat-ups or fly at low level (unless trained and you need to do it) Don't fly in less than VMC Remain current Fly the aeroplane for what it was designed for within the rules applicable Fly the aeroplane the same way you would expect another to, who had your 14 year old son/daughter as a passenger Follow the above and it will go a long way towards keeping you off the statistics pages. Most people don't think cars are dangerous yet there are on average over 20 people killed per week in Australia and most don't even rate a mention in the news, to me that makes driving cars dangerous and flying planes fairly benign. Aldo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 And over 10,000 die in Australia due medical mismanagement annually . The biggest cause of death in people aged between 15 and 40 is suicide. Things should be kept in perspective. There's been a lot of money spent on road safety, but we have more people on mobiles and messaging than ever, and THEIR mind is not on driving. and DOES affect other people. Fortunately your fate is more in YOUR hands with our sport., than on the roads or in hospital.. How good you fly and maintain your plane is very much up to YOU. It's not sissy to be a careful flyer. Too tough to care and you won't be there. Nev 1 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 You've completely misconstrued my point.Perception is everything. It crashed metres away from a swag of people having lunch. That is more than enough for the public, and therefore the authorities, to conclude that it was a significant risk to public safety. If you don't believe me, there's nothing I can do about that. Let's just go about business as usual then. "Pilot dies bravely avoiding crowded restaurant" 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 When you design, build and fly an aircraft you become a aeronautical designer, engineer, lame/L2 and test pilot all rolled into one. If you do it illegally and it is not registered you have committed a crime and if the only people that knew about it were the people associated with the airfield/club then they were the only people who could have done anything to prevent this accident. This accident should not reflect badly on RAAus or it's members who do the right thing but unfortunately it probably will. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spriteah Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 "Pilot dies bravely avoiding crowded restaurant" Yep. But we didn't get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 You've completely misconstrued my point.Perception is everything. It crashed metres away from a swag of people having lunch. That is more than enough for the public, and therefore the authorities, to conclude that it was a significant risk to public safety. If you don't believe me, there's nothing I can do about that. Let's just go about business as usual then. No misconception at all, i asked you a factual question to your reasoning ,and you are using politition answers as YOU have no factual evidence for your post ,please use facts and not speculation when you are talking about killing someones sport because YOU think this or that without actual evidence ,and getting to the metres away bit ,,,yes it was close to the cafe but in very thick forestted area , and if it was as you say 15 to 20 metres away i think you would bloody know about it , ,,,the wreck was only spotted because a former pilot had suspicions and looked carefully as he was driving down the exit rd ,,get that exit road and driving out ,,,,Now come on be a bit real ab out this ............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Aldo tell that to my insurance company please ,,thanks Aviation is not dangerous if it is done correctly, aviation leaves no room for error and does not tolerate fools for very long. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Yep. But we didn't get that. Car crashes sell advertising space, the more horrific the longer the audience watches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Aldo tell that to my insurance company please ,,thanks They like most others probably won't listen to me. It's like the more hours you do as a private pilot the higher the premium that doesn't make sense the more hours you do should mean the more current you are and therefore safer you are, but with insurance companies it is all about risk and perception is reality. Insurance is a bet with an insurance company that something will happen to a piece of property you own, the insurance company is betting that it won't in the majority of circumstances (and based on their profits reported) they are right more times than they are wrong. I don't insure my vehicles (cars or planes) once I own them (apart from 3rd party property). Aldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 No misconception at all, i asked you a factual question to your reasoning ,and you are using politition answers as YOU have no factual evidence for your post ,please use facts and not speculation when you are talking about killing someones sport because YOU think this or that without actual evidence ,and getting to the metres away bit ,,,yes it was close to the cafe but in very thick forestted area , and if it was as you say 15 to 20 metres away i think you would bloody know about it , ,,,the wreck was only spotted because a former pilot had suspicions and looked carefully as he was driving down the exit rd ,,get that exit road and driving out ,,,,Now come on be a bit real ab out this ............................ Bull There were two reports, the first one said the driver a former pilot found it as he was driving down the road the second report said that all 60 (I think that was the number quoted) of the customers heard it immediately stood and raced into the paddock to investigate or something to that extent. What Dutch is trying to get across here is that when an accident happens in close proximity to the general public and it has to do with aviation it very quickly becomes public property and grows a life of its own. From this point onward it becomes pure perception (reality no longer has anything to do with it) peoples perception is their reality. This could get very ugly for recreational flying if not managed very carefully. I'm sure the board and the management team are doing everything in their power to ward off the wolves and we should be doing everything we can to help including not posting dumb sh.t like aviation is dangerous and we know the risks so we should be left to our own devices. What we should be posting is how this one maverick broke the rules and caused this accident (that comment is not necessarily directed at this accident as we are not yet aware of what has happened) and we as pilots do not accept people who break the rules in aviation. That would show that we are proactive in promoting the safety of our chosen pursuit. Aldo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I am comfortable that raaus is acting within its legal requirements. I don't doubt that it is, but you are coming from the wrong direction. In Donoghue V Stevenson, Mr Stevenson was acting within his company's legal requirements when Mrs Donoghue became ill after drinking from a bottle with a snail in it. Not only that, but he didn't know the snail was in it. But he should have taken action to prevent it, and he had to pay out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 "Pilot dies bravely avoiding crowded restaurant" So true! Except in the case of a pilot on his first flight in an unregistered recreational aircraft very suddenly crashing into a wooded area next to a cafe, I suspect the perception will be quite different to that. But hey, might get a lucky break. Let's roll the dice...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Why? .. Was the food bad.? Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Ok all i accept your reasoning ,,,BUT i would still like to know , has an RAA plane at anytime ever killed anyone on the ground from a crash ,{and i,m not talking about some dumb shit walking into a prop } i,m talking about this...... oh shit big danger attitude that dutchroll is talking about of other people being KILLED by an RAA plane ,i know GA has had a few ,but what about an RAA plane ,can anyone tell me of actual incidents ,,or has it never happened ????thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I can't think of any. It's pretty unlikely due to the nature of the operation(s). Compared to any other motor activity they are further away. Over a populous area they might drop in but that should be a small order of risk. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Someone hit a person on the ground with a powered parachute and broke their neck is the only one I can think of. Jabirus flying over built up areas seems risky to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 "Jabirus flying over built up areas seems risky to me." Why, the only data shows they crash at "around the same rate as others" Anyway Im assuming this cafe was close to the airfield if the pilot was lining up for 17 as reported, maybe customers should sign waiver that they are dining at a more dangerous restraunt than others due to proximity to aerodrome.....no doubt there well before cafe and customers arrived. What difference is it if he was non RAA reg or Non VH registered? It was flying illegally The issue of innocent people having plane fall on them is discussing a risk so slim that sits with lightning strike etc Not sure how this can add to impetus to act against RAA in someway. If it isnt registered how can it be RAA issue. farri correctly says these and other accidents are individuals problem, however we are treated as a group like it or not by public perception and weak regulators Speak up if you see someone doing something dangerous 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Some pictures: http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/3099548/lovedale-cafe-owner-tells-of-fatal-plane-crash-photos/?cs=171#slide=12 1 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