Roundsounds

There reporting system needs to encourage reporting of near misses. There are two obvious ways of effecting this: 1. Create an anonymous reporting system for near misses. Or 2. Guarantee no punitive action for reported near misses (provided they are not justifiable and deliberate breaches of reg's). There seems to be a perception of big brother is watching and waiting to pounce on anyone who makes a genuine mistake. I'm not suggesting this to be the case, but it seems to be the perception talking to members and reading blogs etc. The option of anonymous or mon punitive action reporting may help change this perception.

Andy, at the end of the day most incidents result due to an HF issue. What the RAAus doesn't have the ability to do now is identify or forecast the most likely combination of pilot, aircraft, weather etc which will result in an incident. Once this info can be extracted from the existing data, decisions can be made regarding what the most appropriate mitigators might be. I work for an organisation who has such a system in place and it works very well.

Very interesting data, but of little use to tackle the issue of reducing the rate. Until incidents are reviewed to determine common causes, any attempt to fix the problem is simply a shot in the dark. The other key is to create a culture of reporting near misses. People will not report near misses whilst they feel they will be penalised for doing so. I heard there was a proposal to introduce a demerit system, this would definitely stop people reporting incidents. The more safety data that can be collected and analysed, the better the outcomes of any attempts to reduce incident rates.

Surely the smart thing would've been for whoever put these questions together to have just copied them from the sample Q's given in reputable training manuals. At least they would've been written by someone who knows the subject and have been subject to proper scrutiny and editing process.

OME, John sold the aircraft late last year. It's been based in the Hunter since changing hands.

Very pleased to see a post from you Dutch! The description from acro had me a little concerned. Not good news for all involved.

Kaz, this is the incident at Bishops Bridge. There's already a thread running on it.

Acro, the all red one or the red, white and blue one?

http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/3198167/pilot-dies-in-bishops-bridge-plane-crash-photos/#slide=15

Maybe the organisation would be better off with a full time incident investigator. This would free up time for the Ops and Tech managers to focus on incident prevention / education?

The requirement to maintain not less than 1.3 x Vs is included in CASA Air Display approvals to prevent this type of event occurring. It's a shame, damaged aircraft and doesn't reflect well on RAAus.

The QLD Coroner made some very specific recommendations regarding RAAus and oversight of aircraft maintenance. RAAus told the Cornoner they didn't have the resources to perform audits of maintainers (probably in the hope there would be a recommendation for more funding). The Coroner then recommended CASA perform these audits on behalf of RAAus. I think this might be driving this matter now. There's been a fair amount of Comms with us via newsletter and magazine articles.

The video explains why the gear bolts let go!

I meant the evolution of the Ops Manual to where it is today. (I'd like to say the evolution of the Tech manual, but it has yet to evolve.) I'm not saying there are any pending new rules, although I think there may have been a few unintended ones with Issue 7 of the OM and are / have been resolved.

It's very difficult (impossible?) to form an accurate assessment as to whether there are any common causes in incidents involving RAAus aircraft and pilots. This is due to two main factors, firstly the lack of a functional incident recording and reporting database, secondly a reluctance to report near misses. Any new regulations or training are only hit and miss attempts to improve safety. This may be why the safety stat's don't seem to be improving, without the full picture some measures may in fact reduce safety. I understand there is a system being created, but it cannot come too soon and must be used correctly. New rules and threats of removing privileges rarely increase safety, proper education is the only effective way. Appointing a training officer is a good move, but they must have accurate data to work with or else they'll be shooting in the dark.

I've just been sent a poor quality pic of what was reported to be a bent JustAircraft SuperSTOL. Any info anyone?

No CASA employees have been moved on.

Brendan, I agree with your comments. Both Jabiru and RAA should have acted before CASA stepped in. Both organisations should have their own Safety Management Systems in place monitoring incident data to identify any trends. CASA should only be monitoring / auditing these SMS to ensure they are effective, not stepping in and taking action.

I reckon you can strike streamer cutting off the list, the act of dropping the streamer is against the law theses days. If done properly you can use any aircraft safely, just start at low speed and you'll be teetering on the stall all the way around and no chance of over stressing the aircraft. Also a safety pilot (instructor) would be carried to make sure you don't over do it and time the cuts. Spot landing, forced landing and "blind circuit" would probably be the best to kick it off. The blind circuit involves blanking the ASI and altimeter (still visible to the safety pilot). All sequences to build safe skills.

Maybe RAAus could sponsor / oversee a National Comp? I have just sent an email to the Ops Manager suggesting this and offering to assist.

I've had extensive experience as both a competitor and event organiser, although not recently. There would not be many better ways of refining and maintains basic flying skills, with the added bonus of the social aspects. I might raise this with the Ops Manager.

There is a NSW Comp for GA which I think is still affiliated with the Royal Federation of Aeroclubs. I have recently started talking with them about including an RAAus category. The comp includes a Spot Landing, Simulated Forced Landing and either streamer cut or flour bomb. The landings have a ground score and air score (an instructor is carried to assess the air component). This is an excellent way of keeping practice in some basic skills and associated cockpit drills.

Bottom line with L1 privileges - the Tech Manual states a current member holding a valid pilot certificate is qualified as an L1. Until an official notice is published stating something different, I would suggest any legal advice would support this view. The various CAO exemptions (95,10, 32 and 55) all state aircraft are to be maintained in accordance with the RA-Aus Technical Manual. This could be changed by issuing an Airworthiness Notice stating L1 privileges are suspended until successful completion of the RAAus L1 training and assessment package or a rewrite of the relevant section of the Tech Manual.

Slb, a contractor managed the development of the first phase of the L1 training and assessment.

Probably a question worth asking, the person who was developing / coordinating the L1 training has moved on.