Jump to content
Bill

Senate hearing into Self-Administration and Dual Standards in Private Pilot Medicals

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I know it's off topic, but would the truck and dog v pedestrian be at all related to use of mobile devices and stepping between the truck and dog as they pass?

Making pedestrians responsible for their own safety might actually get some results. Maybe start suing their estate for damage to property and psych caused by wandering around with their head firmly in their sphincter.

We always seem to try and fix the symptoms, but not address the problem.

We've had several fatalities in a row this year with this configuration. Most recent was a cyclist within the swept path on a corner, but the others are related to the much bigger gap than say a Road Train trailer, so it could be exactly as you say. This used to happen on the wharves where people would somehow get between the front and rear trailer bolsters before container pick up. We solved that by running chains between the bolsters. This one's harder because the articulation goes from straight ahead with the front of the trailer pointing to the front of the truck to 180 degrees jacknife with the back of the trailer beside the driver's door and the front of the trailer pointing in the same direction as the rear of the truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

 

The problem most likely is that the 7 axle truck and dog only requires a HC license and no medical. The same truck  as a 7 axle B double requires a MC(multi combination) license and medical is required. This is in NSW, so it's not only aviation that has stupid double standards.  

You're right; I find a quad dog combination easier to driver than a B Double, but there's not enough difference to warrant a lower licence level.

 

Some of the truck and dog combinations are operating under heavier axle allowances under PBS (Performance Based Standards) based on bridge loading formulae which in some cases is increasing draw bar length, and this may also be a factor is some cases.

 

The next step up 9 axle combinations (Truck and six axle dog appear to have crossed the line, with reports of truck wheelspin, and also the tri axle front pushing ahead on turns, which pushes the rear of the tipper out much as the same as the old adjustable widespreads which the industry stopped producing for this reason.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't have to be a lorry and dog. There's plenty of deaf pedestrians wandering  into the paths of  buses, taxis and hire cars.  The drivers of those vehicles have to have medicals, but the passing of a medical does not prevent the collision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Doesn't have to be a lorry and dog. There's plenty of deaf pedestrians wandering  into the paths of  buses, taxis and hire cars.  The drivers of those vehicles have to have medicals, but the passing of a medical does not prevent the collision.

One London report on pedestrian fatalities  in 40 km/hr zones showed around 95% occurred from 0 km/hr to 40 km/hr which indicated they should be leaving the speeding drivers alone an focusing on the 95%. In two fatalities the cars were stationary (0 km/hr) and the pedestrians fell on to them/ran into them etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Doesn't have to be a lorry and dog. There's plenty of deaf pedestrians wandering  into the paths of  buses, taxis and hire cars.  The drivers of those vehicles have to have medicals, but the passing of a medical does not prevent the collision.

Exactly, how does vehicle licencing prevent distracted fools walking in front of or into them? Start making pedestrians responsible for their own safety when on roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the three vids I now know why I have to have a class 2 medical to fly my beech23, it's the stress inducing design features, retractable u/c, constant speed prop and the back seat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the obfuscation stream in full flow, you'd wonder why we need to get involved in any medicals at all. We could have a policy of "If you feel like flying you're right to fly!"

 

 

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

With the obfuscation stream in full flow, you'd wonder why we need to get involved in any medicals at all. We could have a policy of "If you feel like flying you're right to fly!"

 

 

Works for private vehicle on the road, no reason it won't work for private aviation. (using the same standard we use for road use that is).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the question remains  - if you can fly an 850kg glider (ie no operable means of support like an engine) in CTA without a transponder, on a drivers licence medical certificate and without a PPL why not another non-VH aircraft being flown on a drivers licence medical certificate? I am not advocating anything just pointing out the inconsistency of the regimes that have evolved from the silo approach of CASA by endorsing the RAAO recreation aviation management system.

In respect of the CASA testimony, the selective approach to informing the committee demonstrated the contempt CASA has for the parliamentary system. For example, the shorthand description of the UK and US medical system was designed to mislead, not to mention the reliance of Carmody on Ben Morgan's regrettable enthusiastic response to the Basic med announcement before the details had been released.

Selective obfuscation is not going to endear CASA to this committee.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope the committee has the nouse to sort the wheat from the chaff....and there is a lot of chaff.  I suppose we will just have to wait to see what happens. I have my basic class 2 medical now due to the new rules where before I could not get any class2 medical on the CASA conditions. The basic class 2 actually works but its a sad edictment on CASA Avmed section that a DAME says yes..they are the guys that are the experts....and the CASA pencil pusher says no regardless. Even watching the videos I cant believe that in all that was said about Austroads commercial licence and conditions are actually wrong and that was even what CASA said....so it is unbelieveable to me this situation...it truly is a government body where the left hand and the right hand really dont talk to each other...or of course it is all "selective" truths

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty poor form for the head of CASA to call AOPA the "airline operators and pilots association"  when everyone knows it's  aircraft owners and pilots association. If a pilot operating in controlled airspace misspoke to this degree they would be ???. This happened about 1/4 into the third vid. Thanks to the OP for links.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

pretty poor form for the head of CASA to call AOPA the "airline operators and pilots association" 

Perhaps it illustrates the pressure they were feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If an individual behaved this way they would not be allowed to continue ! CASA are completely out of touch with reality and are ignorant about safety ! The pressure should be turned up and the heat put on them ! Certain CASA people should be seriously held to account For ignorance, lies and misleading ! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One very minor point Jim, you probably won't get a clearance into controlled airspace without a transponder in your glider nowadays. Class D which is meant to be non radar tower airspace may be OK but I know that the tower guy at Albury has radar information.

Albury is a great example of Australian airspace overkill. In the US it would be most likely 5 nm radius and 2500 feet AGL for the Class D and Class E outside that.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point that Jim didn't mention: the glider does not have to be maintained in a professional licensed workshop to fly in CTA. There is plenty of owner maintenance going on although the owner needs the GFA rating to do this. It is another example of Australian overkill with usually 2 full 8 day courses of 10 to 12 hour days required to gain the rating. Completely ridiculous of course when a USA maintenance rating for LSA is 16 hours of instruction. Just shows how self administration doesn't help reduce stupid bureaucratic requirements. Both GFA and RAAus have become what they were originally set up to avoid being.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Senate hearing: I think Carmody may have been set up by guess who? Wonder how long before he resigns?

 

He said that it was open to AOPA to be a Part 149 self administering organisation. This would be news to ELAAA I guess who have been trying for how long? Ben Morgan needs this information to pass to the Senators before the next CASA appearance if any ELAAA people are reading this. There was a 2011 or 2012 position paper by Dr Jonathan Aleck of CASA  where he states that there need be no more than one organisation for each branch of  aviation. Of course once an organisation takes on the job it completely ceases to be an effective political lobby group for its members. Just take a look at RAAus and GFA. CASA lapdogs.

 

It also begs the question of why private individuals or their organisations should actually be doing the jobs of public servants. There is a Civil Aviation Act passed by Parliament and CASA was set up to do the job of administering civil aviation safety in Australia. If they aren't doing it they need have their employment terminated and replaced by those who will. We don't have the motoring organisations in charge of driver licences, roadworthiness and law enforcement.

 

Once again, self administration isn't the answer. The problem is the rules.  Better to have dis-interested public servants administer them than fanatics on a Mission from God.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if CASA was actually called back before the committee as foreshadowed towards the end of their Nov 19 appearance?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

×