Jump to content

760kg upgrade and CASA consultation


Recommended Posts

YES

 

Go to another category or experimental VH.

 

BUT

 

Not to what it was (with 15 other builders) made to fit.  At the time of building.

 

To make "experimental" I would have to dismantle it, just to Document each build stage.

 

All for the sake of Bureaucrats,  

 

Not forgetting I started before RAA took over the Ultralight Federation.

 

A good retirement hobby,  & before someone upset CASA.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

there is no such thing as an acceptable kill rate

 

So the 136 deaths on quad bikes over the last 8 years weren't an acceptable kill rate? Whilst it is unfortunate that anybody meets an untimely end, society cannot afford, for many reasons, to be so completely risk averse as to not allow people to explore the boundaries of behaviour. Whats next? banning walking because pedestrians get killed?

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
What a load of whining. You really want to go back the prescriptgive days and have NONE???????????

 

Well that's a typical authoritarian response, but I expect that from you.

 

When you say "none", you mean no legal pathway, but generally no-one cared as long as no-one hurt anyone else.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
when was the last time an RAA aircraft killed someone on the ground? its an abstract risk

 

The risk to people on the ground from single engine piston in general is very low. If you look at the accidents, the risk to people on the ground comes from:

 

  • military or ex military jets
     
  • cargo jets
     
  • private jets
     
  • RPT jets
     
  • turboprops
     

 

In other words, size and speed make a big difference.

 

Never the less, small aircraft flying over are the ones people worry about falling onto them, and those are the ones CASA focuses on. The biggest public risk is a Roulette crash at the F1 GP, a private jet ending up on the Tullamarine freeway or a 777 ending up in Keilor Park, but CASA's rules are based on public perception, not actual risk.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
To make "experimental" I would have to dismantle it, just to Document each build stage.

 

Why do you say that? As far as I can see, the only requirement for VH Experimental is that "the major portion ... has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation".

 

No real requirement for documentation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read up on it ,

 

It had stages of construction "inspection" & documentation, By some (L2 perhaps) one.

 

I have a hard time deciphering Most of the documentation, from aviation authorities.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Turbs, in some ways we are better off now than in the dark old days.  On a clear day this year at 10,000 ft in a glider over Gawler, I could see Adelaide in the foreground and right down the coast nearly to Victor Harbor. I thought then that there are actually only a few places in the world with such freedom and how lucky we really were.

 

This is not going to stop me complaining about bureaucrats and much needed improvements, but I agree about how things could be worse.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
It had stages of construction "inspection" & documentation, By some (L2 perhaps) one.

 

You probably should talk to the SAAA to get the details of what an Authorised Person would want to see. But I think that inspections etc. are recommended but not actually required fro issue of the certificate. The requirements for VH registration are actually much simpler than for RAA registration - RAA went and added a whole lot of requirements of their own that don't exist in the VH world.

 

You  would be applying for an experimental certificate for the purpose of

 

CASR 21.191(g)  operating an amateur‑built aircraft: that is an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation;

 

And you are entitled to the certificate if:

CASR 21.193 An applicant for an experimental certificate is entitled to the certificate if the applicant gives CASA, an authorised person or a relevant approved design organisation the following:

(a)  a statement, in a form and manner acceptable to CASA or the authorised person, setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used;

(b)  enough data (such as photographs) to identify the aircraft;

©  upon inspection of the aircraft, any information reasonably needed by CASA or the authorised person or relevant approved design organisation to enable it to impose any conditions, including operational limitations, necessary in the interests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water;

 

I don't know the current SAAA policy, but it seems it would be hard to deny you a certificate if the legislation says you are entitled. What they can do is set additional operational limitations if there are perceived issues with the build, aircraft design etc.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the 136 deaths on quad bikes over the last 8 years weren't an acceptable kill rate? Whilst it is unfortunate that anybody meets an untimely end, society cannot afford, for many reasons, to be so completely risk averse as to not allow people to explore the boundaries of behaviour. Whats next? banning walking because pedestrians get killed?

 

That's correct, there was no acceptable kill rate on quad bikes either, and I think it was the Victorian Government which made itr mandatory for an owner to provide an effective roll cage. (so self-administration plus the owner is responsible for the roll cage being effective, elmininating the government from being responsible if it prescribed a design). We discussed the details on here.  What I'm seeing in the Ag outlets where I go for chainsaws etc. is only a few quad baikes on sale, but more John Deere etc two seater trays with roll cages.  I still see a lot of quad bikes on farms without roll cages, but the owners bear the blame and financial costs when a accident occurs.

 

We also discussed a prior quad bike accident in Tasmania where a farm employee was awarded $12 million after a quad bike rolled over and a young female employee was killed. Key points in that judgement were maintenance (only the rear brakes were working and one tyre was half flat, and safety, the employer didn't provide a helment.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian Government which made itr mandatory for an owner to provide an effective roll cage.

 

The Victorian Government did no such thing. It simply introduced a rebate scheme for roll bar fitment to NEW quads which could be sold without roll bars (probably because of interstate trade issues).

 

You are seeing less quads as a result of market influences such introduction of the buggies, and yes, the marketplace recognizing the dangers associated with quads. I doubt any farmer new of the Tasmanian case or even if it influenced any on farm decision.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim sums up  my experience in Victoria. We changed from a quad bike to a buggy because the buggy is better and safer and carries more stuff.

 

We were aware of accidents from quad bikes but not aware of any legislation. We ( reluctantly ) don't have any employees because of the  risk that you could lose the farm if they sued and the insurance company disowned you.

 

We certainly would not have let an employee drive a quad, but what if they did anyway? You could be at fault for not supervising them enough. The insurance would want to know about the employees quad bike training, and so it would start.

 

To return to the point: there are activities ( like ocean-shore rock fishing ) which are far more dangerous than flying. Banning them could lead to people becoming inactive, but inactivity is one of the most dangerous things there is! It is 4 times more dangerous than flying.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Google, there were 158 deaths due to rock fishing in Australia in the last 11 years.

 

About 51,000 deaths from diabetes in the same period. I selected diabetes because it has a strong inactivity connection.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Victorian Government did no such thing. It simply introduced a rebate scheme for roll bar fitment to NEW quads which could be sold without roll bars (probably because of interstate trade issues).

 

You are seeing less quads as a result of market influences such introduction of the buggies, and yes, the marketplace recognizing the dangers associated with quads. I doubt any farmer new of the Tasmanian case or even if it influenced any on farm decision.

 

You must have missed it.  There have been roll bar rebates for tractors from time to time, but roll bars are still mandatory on tractors.

 

Roll bars wouldn't work on Quads, they need a roll cage plus seat belt to hold the occupants inside the cage. At the time I'm talking about the SA SES responded by disposing of all their Quad bikes.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You must have missed it.  There have been roll bar rebates for tractors from time to time, but roll bars are still mandatory on tractors.

 

Roll bars wouldn't work on Quads, they need a roll cage plus seat belt to hold the occupants inside the cage. At the time I'm talking about the SA SES responded by disposing of all their Quad bikes.

 

Personally, I feel that  if an adult (owner) wishes to ride a quad, drive a car, ride a motorbike/bicycle ,operate a tractor/industrial machine, without helmets , roll cage, safety belts that should be their right, however misguided they may be. 

 

On the other hand I believe children and employees must be protected from negligent adults & employers and the law must force the use of such devices..

 

The main function of a roll bar/cage on a quad is to reduce the risk of crush injury (person with weight of bike in top) and the ability of the machine to actually role over more than 90 degrees. This does work. Seat belt/harness may improve the riders odds of survival but this is in addition to the action of the bar.

 

For very many years now all new tractors must meet Au standards, which includes a roll cage.  I doubt  that rebates for tractor roll cages is still in effect - my 40 year old DB was a beneficiary of the rebate.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's a typical authoritarian response, but I expect that from you.

 

When you say "none", you mean no legal pathway, but generally no-one cared as long as no-one hurt anyone else.

 

Not authoritarian at all. 

 

Bruce lamented the loss of freedoms.

 

I asked what about the AUF and RAA pilots who can now build their own aircraft and fly on a car medical where previously they couldn't unless they obtained a PPL.

 

We didn't lose freedoms, we gained freedoms.

 

You're off on some criticism of the current system.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SA SES responded by disposing of all their Quad bikes.

 

After watching those guys in action a number of times in various situations, I would say that the management of the SES would do well to remove every powered device from their members for their own protection. Don't get me wrong there are some wonderful people involved in the SES but when the adrenaline kicks in all the training in the world wont save some from themselves.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Roll bars wouldn't work on Quads, they need a roll cage plus seat belt to hold the occupants inside the cage.

 

There are two approved devices that qualify for the rebate scheme and neither of them are roll cages (the Quadbar Flexi and the ATV Lifeguard).

 

I agree with your reference about tractors but who was talking about tractors?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 quads at my farm and 3 tractors. Its the operation of them all in other words the idiot behind the wheel....no different in a car or a aircraft. We dont go nuts or hell for leather on the quads they are used so you dont have to walk but we dont speed along either. Same with the tractors...know your limitations on all the equipment you operate. My mate will take my tractor into places I would never go but he is careful and very experienced. Thousands of hours using them. The trouble is the govt wants and does legislate for the lowest common denominator. The trouble is that is usually the minority. The Darwin Award is out there for a reason

 

:cops:

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two approved devices that qualify for the rebate scheme and neither of them are roll cages (the Quadbar Flexi and the ATV Lifeguard).

 

I agree with your reference about tractors but who was talking about tractors?

 

The point I was making was that rebate schemes and safety benchmarks are not necessarily connected.

 

They should be, and it may well be that the rebate organisers will be swept into joint responsibility with the designers in certain accidents.

 

Both the Quadbar Flexi and ATV Lifeguards "prop up" the quad bike when it gets upside down, crushing the rider. however when the quad bike bounces and the rider departs the seat he/she might well be on the ground when the bike inverts and the "anti-crush" device could be the thing that crushes the rider.

 

The roll cage/seat belt combination was introduced into Fork Lifts and Race cars so in a roll over the driver is retained in his seat where not part of him can come in contact witrh another solid object, or the anti-crush device itself.

 

Since the focus on Quad bikes was kicked off by the Tasmanian case result, and a Quad bike fatality around the same time, those cases are likely to feature in any Quad Bike accident. The owner/operator makes his her own choice of protection and has to live with it.

 

However, the original subject was not about design, it was about whether the large number of fatalities in Quad bikes is an acceptable kill rate (a rate of deaths after which something will be done to stop them), and the answer is still No, the acceptable kill rate is zero in Quad bikes just as it is in recreational aircraft.

 

Those involved in designing and operating them have to work for ways to reduce the chance of a fatality.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...