turboplanner

I though that is what accountants do. Say we can't afford that or the dividend will not meet expectations. Nev

The SMS ensures that. Sounds like you don't have one, or yours isn't satisfactory, because ALL employees are involved; otherwise you would have the accountants instructing purchasers not to order torch batteries for whatever reason was the flavour of the day.

Just a correction - Baders official logbook entry for the crash that cost him his legs, simply states, "crashed slow-rolling near ground" - not a crash on takeoff caused by incorrect prop pitch setting.'Bad show': Douglas Bader's stoical logbook entry on crash that cost him his legs | Daily Mail Online

I see HF and HR as two separate things Yen,

HR beingv a disease.

I view Human Factors as doing something accodentally that you normally wouldn't do; like Douglas Bader's crash when he tried to take his Spitfire off in coarse pitch.

If this is true why do most "Joe Publics" tell us flyers that any plane smaller than a Dash 8 is dangerous?

I was one of the people who listened to the stories about so and so being a "very safe" pilot some time before so and so wiped himself out in one of his usual low level displays, and on one holiday took a helicopter ride with my family to the top of Fox Glacier in New Zealand.

On the way back down, unrequested, the pilot decided to charge at the cliff face and turn at the last minute. I was mildly concerned at the safety of that turn which felt in excess of 2 g.

A week later, same flight, same day the helicopter crashed killing everyone on board.

In this case, what counts is the people believing they were taking a safe flight, and the report of plaintiff lawyers taking action to secure the assets of a late pilot indicate that unless the matter(s) are settle out of court, we will learn more about the perceptions of a passenger taking a flight in a light aircraft.

1 in 5 risk, that is just plain ********.At that rate we would be dropping like flies. Everyone would be dead before getting many hrs up. Sure 5 hrs a year is low but not deadly.

Have you not noticed some of our dear friends with bulk hrs are no longer with us?

 

You seem to be making up facts to suit your argument.

You can adjust the trips to whatever average you like to come up with a risk profile, but at around 1 fatality per year in GA/RA its going to be a high risk figure.

Yes, some of the ones who have died had bulk hours, and their risk factor was less.

The point was none of us have a snowball's chance in hell of getting to 1 in a billion, so it's not surprising there's a focus on safety regulations by the government.

SSCBD commented that back in the day there was no human factors training. I beg to differ. Baxk in the day it was called airmanship and the old hands expected to see it in the new chums. Same thing, different name and in my opinion the old way was just as good.The same applied to industry, safety was always there but we didn't have proffessionals doling it out.

It addressed human factors by motivating pilots towards a safer way of operating, thinking before acting, and following safe procedures.

There wasn't a written communication, more of a handing down line line from the more experienced pilots.

I can remember as a kid watching two pilots doing a start up on a Tiger Moth, and the exchange and procedures between the two were an education, and if anything, better than what you see today.

The second world war took airmanship to a new level as pilots were killed in silly accidents and training away from the battlefields. I read that more trainee pilots were killed at Mildura training on Beaufighters than were killed in battle.

By the 1950's the flying standard in Australia was claimed to be the best in the world, and a lot of people on this forum would have met those old professionals, and may been stung by them for screwing up, even for the most minor transgressions.

By the end of the 1950s Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft in particular were cashing in on the post war boom, selling a message of flying cars, telling people that anyone could fly these new aircraft, they weren't much different to a car. That BS went on through the early 1960s until the carnage became too obvious and people started to sue based on the BS they had been told

However, we had a new generation of risk takes, short cut takers, and others who just didn't know what they didn't know.

The beautiful symmetry of the old timers following their check procedures disappeared, and operation of aircraft was more haphazard.

By the 1970s it was necessary for the Aviation Safety Digest to run special features on flying the older aircraft like tigers, where pilots were regularly doing ground loops, smashing props, and getting cut up during slovenly starting procedures etc.

In the decades since, ATSB have identified a lot of accidents caused by silly mistakes, non-professional behaviour, dumb thinking etc. and called it human factors.

I don't doubt the statistics and the potential to save lives by changing the culture back to airmanship or some other name which encourages pilots to be professional, but the CASA thought bubbles on what HF is, and the training material they provided seem to have been totally ineffective. Time for a Take 2.

Let me guess....you would also like to see tighter regulation and more training for all private car, motorcycle, boat, and jetski operators, as well forcing them to have qualified maintainers for any maintenance and their mandatory annual inspection and biennial review, otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

Maintenance for all those items is nowhere near as critical; if the engine throws a rod through the side, you just roll to a stop and walk, and the road trauma statistics also show maintanence as a very low factor.

In Victoria we only have a compulsory inspection when a vehicle changes hands, and given the statistics, I'm against the unnecessary expense of annual inspections.

Ground based operations require a much lower set of skills than a pilot needs, but I am in favour of a retest of road law knowledge about every ten years.

A lot of your precious regulations are not developed in blood, they were developed to ensure bureaucrats stay employed. The USA, for example, has very effective, but far less aviation regulation than we do.

You're WAY out of date with the changes to aviation in the USA. The FAA has been steadily introducing the ICAO regulations we are required to comply with, and today it's not like it used to be a couple of years ago. I can remember booking a Cherokee one night in Las Vegas. When I turned up the next day, as a foreigner, without showing the CFI my licence, he threw they keys through the air and said "It's the green one over there" wouldn't happen today.

Face it, we all operate vehicles on a daily basis with far less regulation than is forced on private aircraft operations. Understandably, regulation is required for those running a business, but it is a significant and unnecessary impingement of freedom for private use.

And as for your example, realistically, if Joe Bloggs wants to fly his poorly maintained Cessna through the trees in the middle of Bumblef*ck, who cares? It's not your problem, nor anyone else's except his. It only becomes a problem if he involves the public.You might happily throw a paddock basher commodore around in the sticks, but only a fool would do the same in town.

There's always the possibility for someone to sue his estate based on his negligence.

Turbs, there are many more people who want to take out their superbly maintained plane on nice safe weather days and fly at a safe altitude just enjoying themselves. And if it keeps them active, the total health benefits outweigh the risk by about 4 times.Taking the worst example of piloting and using it to make regulations for everybody is nasty, but just what is happening.

I reckon everybody should get a fair go without it being assumed that they will go and crash into a kindergarten if let alone for an hour or two. How many of us have crashed into kindergartens anyway? Maybe that's only a theoretical risk.

 

Come have a fly with me ( as long as you are not overweight ) and see. I bet we don't crash into a kindergarten.

It's the bottom of the barrel which produces the bulk of the statistics and it's and it's only natural that authorities have to address those people.

In some cases that affects the rest of us, but most people would be conforming to those standards anyway.

I understand your point about the health benefits. Park Victoria did research which showed that people were killing themselves in huge numbers by drinking, smoking, and voluntarily eating themselves into heart attacks. They then ran a campaign to get people moving and out into the parks. I also accept that your inference that taking people flying may reduce these deaths, but your problem here is that when the Sociologists drilled down to the net result, some flyers are still dying, and that has to be addressed.

Using an example of the chances of someone crashing into a kindergarten, to justify all risks from a solo pilot is emotive, and may not have happened, however there are plenty of statistics available, particularly in the US, from FAA records which show people have been injured and killed from falling aircraft and parts, and also from aircraft sliding along the ground out of control.

It remains a risk which has to be addressed.

Being able to take risks if YOU want to is fine in theory, and I fully support that principle, but the average person does not know the extent of the risk in an example like this and is likely to take the view it's run/approved by the government and must therefore meet the "normal" safety rules. The passengers are users of the system not part of it's formulation, don't know the skill of the pilot, and are not in a position to pick and choose any pilot they know of, or prefer. If you charter a plane to take a football team to Brazil, It's operating under much less strict conditions/ requirements than RPT and charter has a much lower safety record for that reason. Nev

Most members of the public would have the expectation that the safety level would be the same as a QANTAS flight, unless they were briefed otherwise.

Or you could ask "why does anyone who flys privately need all these regulations that are aimed at commercial operators?"No other private vehicle operator has to put up with such draconian and unnecessary regulation.

The problem is some people just want to ignore regulations which were developed in blood, and they potter along getting as little as 5 - 10 hours a year under their belt, and slowly losing the skills they were taught.

They don't want any regulations; they just want to be able to drag out their aircraft, often poorly maintained and do something exciting like flying in and out of the trees.

The trail of destruction and the image they leave just drags the industry down. We would be better off without them.

This is a very interesting, and telling, thread.

It appears that the cost of flying RA is rapidly moving up into the GA single engine market level.

And that poses two potential issues:

1. It might be asked by government: Why are we letting this group get away with exemptions from GA regulations? What is the point?

2. The Rag and Tube and local flyers are being rapidly marginalised without the ability to correct the situation through an Association structure.

I reckon the single thing missing is for people to have the right to do things at their OWN RISK.

It's not coming back for the simple reason that the most appropriate person to shell out the $6 million it will cost to allow the victim to live out his life with a roof over his head, is the person who screwed up.

The only law you would need would be the criminal one, such as if your pilot or doctor turned up drunk.We already have that law.

we don't have is the ability to decide if we want to do something at our own risk.

However, if you're flying and you are negligent and the aircraft or a component falls on someone, or you hit a power line and someone is electrocuted in the aftermath you go back up to the first or second example.

ABC 7:30 REPORT - Tuesday 25th July 2017There will certainly be some activity following this segment, which included guarded comment from CASAs' Peter Gibson. This recent Mt Gambier accident was compared to the night accident near Horsham some years back. The qualifications and experience of both pilots was discussed. An aviation industry consultant called for CASA to mandate higher quals and experience. A family member of the Horsham victims called for victims' families to commence immediate legal action against accident pilots, including placing a caveat upon all their property. Despite the fact that an inquiry into AngelFlights' operations several years ago, that did not initiate any change at all - this time things might just be different.

Angel Flight's arm's length relationship to the private pilots carrying out the service might also now come under scrutiny; someone had to be carrying out a duty of care to avoid a reasonably forseeable risk.

My perception is that there are quite a few members who oppose any owner of a flying school, or an instructor, being elected to the Board. Why is this so important to some members?Having a commercial interest, plus a good knowledge of the aviation industry, should not necessarily be automatically deemed a 'conflict-of-interest'. That will only occur if the elected person does not declare fully their 'interests', and does not step aside when contentious, and conflicting, issues are voted on. Doesn't prevent them providing sound comment on issues - just provided they don't vote if there's possible c-o-i.

 

Of course, it's probably best that there be a balance on the Board. That means we need to elect a mix of talents, and I think that is now happening. Like others on this forum, I try to judge applicants on their resume'. But, as of today, I have not received my Sport Pilot, and for that, RAAus - I'm not a happy camper. Online voting will have to come. happy days,

It's also important to have a mix; if all of one side of the sport are making the decisions they will tend to make them with an eye for the advantage of their sector, which can damage the other sectors and kill their sector anyway; recent history is a good example of this, and that's probably why people are touchy.

However it's not logical to keep referring to the Board in the sense that it existed before RAA Ltd; you don't have that representation any longer. Now you are just voting for directors which is a vastly different thing.

This information comes from Voca; I would suggest anyone interested should do some research on Voca.

The heading of this thread is misleading; the Minister did not fail to reply to a letter; he just chose to reply through his Chief of Staff.

Given the letter sent by the anonymous person, that was a prudent action.

Federal and State Ministers are very unlikely to personally respond in writing, except where the reply has been researched and is within Government policy; then they have been known to be very frank.

So in some respects what happened actually is standard procedure, but that says a lot more about the person approaching the Minister, than about the Minister himself.

Apart from anything else, remember he is the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development - a HUGE portfolio.

My altimeter is very old and doesn't have a subscale. The adjustment is by turning the dial face to your local height.

Imo the unique look of a facet mobile type makes it a selling positive for early adopters.

Sometimes you can guess it; more often you can't but the potential customers often come up with pointers.

I've now been a part of, and studied what constitutes the RA community, in Australia, for about a decade, and it's interesting that it's in quite a different and more conservative space today than it was even a decade ago.

If you look at the products being sold, they are predominantly conventional configuration aircraft which are suited to local flights, and an occasional cross country adventure; the oddballs such as the flying inflatable boat, and the various extreme designs, have fallen away.

The Facet Mobile was presumably named from the facets of a gemstone, but has Oregami origins. This design, and flying wings, flying saucers etc, I would call close-coupled. They have the ability to pitch faster and more severely than something with a tail-plane a comfortable length away from the wing, able to apply much finer control.

However, there will always be people who go after the unique; you will often see one or two of these designs in RC clubs, usually flown by one of the most skillful operators, because it takes a high degree of skill to keep ahead of what this type of aircraft can do in an instant.

The demographic of RA pilots is people who have come from all walks of life, often late in life, and who "just want to fly". Often, they don't want to have to learn the principles of flight, they don't want to learn navigation, they don't want to learn radio, they don't want to learn Met, they just want to fly.

This points toward a conventional aircraft, designed to be as foolproof as possible.

Electric, as others have mentioned removes the in-flight variation in weight distribution, and also opens up the possibilities with a lighter motor, and power modules which can be shaped, to optimise weight distribution, and in some location, form the outer skin for cooling.

There is also a huge solar catchment area on the top and side surfaces; and that opens up the concept of an aircraft designed to take off, cruise, and descend on solar only, with batteries held in reserve for an emergency landing. Have a look at the history of the World Solar Challenge, a car race from Darwin to Adelaide, where 30 years ago, the first cars were streamliners with in some cases, push bike wheels, and they got faster until the NT 130 km/hr speed limit had to be built into the rules, and then upright seating was mandated to add wind resistance, and more lately solar panel area has had to be reduced to try to stop the cars running the full distance at the maximum NT/SA speed limits.

This is an ideal opportunity for thinking outside the square.

We still need a battery break-through to make cruising feasible; the break-through s have been announced for the last 30 years- from the mid '80s.

The upper surfaces of an aircraft, and the fact that it cruises in clear conditions make solat powers very attractive distance extender.

Ah yes ICAO harmonisation, the road to the death of GA in Australia.

This is in the wrong forum.

After a relatively quick (2 hours) search of the regulations, all I could find to determine VFR conditions and if it is legal to take off for Day VFR is as follows;1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track

If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.

 

2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)

 

3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.

 

4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.

 

For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?

 

Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.

This thread is about RAA reports.