turboplanner Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Why then, did I recently read in an RAA article that over 90% of our accidents are directly attributable to pilot HF?The maintenance issue is something that is being pushed by certain people and by our own stats, will affect less than 10% of the problem. Not a problem, assuming the three or so dead are written off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 I know one which not only took out the pilot/owner but his instructor, and another one who took out the tester, and another clown who put another instructor through the fence at the end of the strip, and that’s what I can remember in the time it took to write this. Then there are the engine failures, one doozy being the spark plug falling out of a Rotax. It would be more helpful if RAA presented the reasons along with a list of the failures that led to them. I'd love to hear more about these incidents and specifically how bad maintenence by an L1 caused them. Please don't tell me to dredge through a mountain of reports and stats, I have better things to do. RAAus don't make info on fatals available ( let's not have discussion for the 100th time here ) and even the info they do release is thin on specifics. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Need more details.... were these maintenance errors solely responsible or were they events that resulted in deaths because they were poorly handled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 RAA should have all the records; talk to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 post 25 .......... fatalities / 100,000 hours is incorrect (way wrong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 RAA should have all the records; talk to them. You are the one making the claim. You should be able to substantiate it, not send us off to do it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 You are the one making the claim. You should be able to substantiate it, not send us off to do it. You're the one concerned about the L1 issue; I'd be surprised if I wasn't busier than you, I'm not going into detail on individual cases for the same reasons as RAA, but in general terms on the three cases I mentioned: Would you agree that an L1 should be checking his primary control linkages on a regular basis? Would you agree that an L1 should be able to tune his engine to the point where it runs with reasonable reliability? Would you agree that an L1 should be able to install a spark plug correctly? If you answer yes to those three, that's three in a row. We shouldn't have to be arguing any statistics, RAA should be providing these to members on a regular basis. While I totally agree they can't release police briefs and their own detailed findings in relation to Coroners' Inquiries, I would be very surprised if there was any restraint at all in releasing broader statistics, perhaps on a two or even three year rolling total to disguise individual accidents. It should then be possible to extract HF, Pilot error, L1 error etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 But you said you knew of 3 incidents specifically caused by L1 maintenance Turbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 You're the one concerned about the L1 issue; I'd be surprised if I wasn't busier than you, I'm not going into detail on individual cases for the same reasons as RAA, but in general terms on the three cases I mentioned:Would you agree that an L1 should be checking his primary control linkages on a regular basis? Would you agree that an L1 should be able to tune his engine to the point where it runs with reasonable reliability? Would you agree that an L1 should be able to install a spark plug correctly? If you answer yes to those three, that's three in a row. We shouldn't have to be arguing any statistics, RAA should be providing these to members on a regular basis. While I totally agree they can't release police briefs and their own detailed findings in relation to Coroners' Inquiries, I would be very surprised if there was any restraint at all in releasing broader statistics, perhaps on a two or even three year rolling total to disguise individual accidents. It should then be possible to extract HF, Pilot error, L1 error etc. I mixed up one; the question about the spar plug should have been "adjust carb float bowl level. The spark plug which fell out was listed in the RAA magazine along with: Vapour Lock Oil leakage around filter Carbs overflowing These four reports related to successful forced landings. So that's seven without really doing any research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 But if there isn't planes falling out of the sky because of dodgy L1 maintenance why put everyone through a costly course? Exactly. I agree and the solution would be to run a practical course for those who would like one, and not have it forced upon them. For instance, go back to being able to maintain your own aircraft if you feel competent, if not get someone else to do your maintenance or book yourself onto a course. The Organisations should be promoting EDUCATION but allow those owners to choose their own levels as required. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Show us your data TP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Exactly. I agree and the solution would be to run a practical course for those who would like one, and not have it forced upon them. For instance, go back to being able to maintain your own aircraft if you feel competent, if not get someone else to do your maintenance or book yourself onto a course.The Organisations should be promoting EDUCATION but allow those owners to choose their own levels as required. The problem is the ones who need it often can't be bothered or think they can get by. You'd think setting a float level wouldn't be too hard. The other issue is the changing status of RA. The GA standard of Maintenance is based on the LAME. The exemptions from CASA regulations occurred when airframes were rag and tube, and engines were not much more complex than a lawn mower, and if the engine failed, the hole package was designed to glide down and land at a slow speed Today RA people in some cases are maintaining their own engines which are far more complex than the bottom end of the old GA machines, like the gypsy major. I agree on education, but for RAA to do it as they have done is difficult because of the geographic spread of the aircraft. Perhaps designing a training package for local TAFES may be an alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 If an engine fails, my hole package does something different. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 But you said you knew of 3 incidents specifically caused by L1 maintenance Turbs. Count them in the post above your statement 1,2,3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 You're the one concerned about the L1 issue; I'd be surprised if I wasn't busier than you. No I am not concerned about L1s. Like SQDI I am not aware of aircraft falling out of the sky due to bad L1 maintenance. As for the busy comment, I am not the one with time to make almost 10,000 posts on here. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 I mixed up one; the question about the spar plug should have been "adjust carb float bowl level.The spark plug which fell out was listed in the RAA magazine along with: Vapour Lock Oil leakage around filter Carbs overflowing These four reports related to successful forced landings. So that's seven without really doing any research. Thats great to tell us about some incidents, but where is the proof that these were the result of L1 work? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Thats great to tell us about some incidents, but where is the proof that these were the result of L1 work? Well the owner will, or should be maintaining his own aircraft, unless he opts not to in which case he is required to hire an L2, so you could possibly pin those issues on L2 maintenance, but I wouldn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 how about a l2 l4 drilling clover leaf hole so as the engine frame would fit raa failed casa failed neil p/sstill have frame p/ss by the way since cutting my aircraft in half have been getting 8hrs sleep a night as for raa being safety cons bull sxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 I agree on education, but for RAA to do it as they have done is difficult because of the geographic spread of the aircraft. Perhaps designing a training package for local TAFES may be an alternative. Well, I have just received an email from RAA entitled: Professional Development Program which announces the rollout of practical Level One owner maintainer courses. We will have to wait and see what that means and how they are going to do it. Lets hope that once everyone has completed it ..... there will be no L1 shortcomings at all! Then it will be on to the L2s and then the L4s but they will have to continue through to LAMEs who are not familiar with our aircraft and engines. The sky's the limit, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 the l1 was a complete waste of time anyone that failed should not even think about touching or doing anything to an aircraft according to the ceo it was made easy to pass so as everyone passed that's bullshxx neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Surely some of the L1 incidents could/should have been picked up on a pre-flight. Therefore, inadequate pre-flight = pilot responsible. But who is at fault here - the pilot, the Instructor who taught him to do a preflight, or the CFI who did his last BFR? and does this come under Operations, or Maintenance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 since cutting my aircraft in half Photos......or it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Surely some of the L1 incidents could/should have been picked up on a pre-flight.Therefore, inadequate pre-flight = pilot responsible. But who is at fault here - the pilot, the Instructor who taught him to do a preflight, or the CFI who did his last BFR? and does this come under Operations, or Maintenance? Where are the reports from RAAus from the management systems showing that there are L1 incidents? If there are no statistics from the accident/incident system to support there being L1 incidents then can you point to the ops managers reports of inspections of training schools where L1 failures have been observed and reported? Or if both of these fail to exist how about the RAAus tech manager and office reports of L1 incidents and failures from their inspections or observations? And given the owner/builder of any kit or airframe is the designer where Is the very clear guidance from RAAus on what’s maintenance and what’s maintenance and what’s modification ... and for at least the original builder where is the authority in the CAO to limit what process or design and maintenance a designer or builder is allowed to use? That last one is very slippery for tech office ... once you start directing design you’re nearing that horrid area or legal responsibility if something goes wrong. Avoidance of that was one of the reasons inspections of airframes on sale and transfer were NOT airworthiness statements but simple condition statements ... and RAAus have no authority to cancel a registration on a homebuilt if a condition statement says unairworthy ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Photos......or it didn't happen. It happened, photos posted sometime ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 It happened, photos posted sometime ago. Do you know where? I remember saying the same thing when it was being threatened but heard no more. 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