Safety culture in GA.

[puff]

With the sad loss of yet another pilot this week surely the industry should be asking itself, is there a culture of silence on safety, or does the industry and the pilots themselves seem to happily except that pilots will continue to die doing this job over and over again and we sadly never seem to learn from what caused it to happen in the first place.

Other industries no matter what the accident investigate and at least attempt to introduce measures to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. Sadly we all seem to continue with the attitude of accident in aviation will happen so there is nothing we can do, yet ask anyone ‘quietly’ in lower levels of GA they will tell you of concerns. In the same boat we have had operators that were known to be dodgy, yet when CASA closed them down all and sundry, including the very pilots and engineers that complained about them in the first place came out in support of the operator heavily criticise the regulator?

I have a few mates currently flying in Northern Australia, and talking to them all they ALL are concerned about both the safety of the aircraft they fly, and the complete lack of a safety culture of the organisation that they work at.

Anyone with PPL level human factors experience knows about the swiss cheese model, yet why do companies in northern Australia seem to enjoy under quoting each other to the point of the fact that no one makes money unless they skimp on engineering, or doesn’t pay the pilots the award, or refuses to fly under IFR flight rules in IMC etc. Sadly next to this CASA is either blind or just doesn’t care that the wool is pulled over the FOIs eyes at audit time, and that CASA airworthiness inspectors seems to only go to ensuring that a/c have the correct placards in the cockpit, rather than checking to ensure that things are replaced on a/c when they are supposed to be, rather than letting them fail before replacing them.

Upon looking into the crash of the Chalks Mallard in the U.S in 2005 nearly every pilot that worked in that company put their concerns in writing to the company about maintenance concerns about their aircraft, of the 6 captains working for the company, 3 resigned in the 12 months before the crash, 2 of them didn’t even have a job to go to, because they were THAT concerned about the state of the aircraft. After it crashed and people died, the FAA and the NTSB asked each of these pilots, if you were that concerned about it, why did not a single person contact the FAA or NTSB.

This is what I am asking, do we also in aviation have a ‘cone of silence’ about dodgy practices in both engineering and operations, because it’s ‘just the way it is’, and everyone is concerned about standing up for safety and being labelled a troublemaker and never being employed in the industry again. One of the pilots in the Chalks case was accused by the employer of being ‘scared’ of flying and being a troublemaker for standing up for his concerns about the fact that the company had no culture of safety. He was threatned with suspension, and being removed to F/O duties because of his letters before his eventual resignation. In the same voice however, NTSB criticised the FAA inspector for not picking up on the faults in the company, and the FAA also seemed to have a culture of believing that the company had been around a long time and would be doing the right thing as they were considered the ‘leader’ in operations of the Mallard.

What is the answer, the aircraft are getting older, the margins are getting thinner, fuel is getting more expensive, what does the industry do to improve the stats of the amount of people that continue to die in it, or do we just ignore it, and continue to including this loss of life as just a cost of doing business.

[c173]

great post mate, this is has been running through my mind all day

as to the answer, all i could think of today was introducing some sort of ageing aircraft regulation....doesnt solve everything but will get these 30+ year old airframes with who knows what kind of ex maintenance schedules off the market

only the tip of the iceberg I know, but something has to be done

[Sherrin123]

I'm one of those concerned blokes flying up in north australia. There isn't a day that goes by where I don't worry about what could and might happen.

But we're put in a fairly precarious position.....

It's very easy to sit back and say "stand up for yourself and demand to the boss that safety standards are kept".

But in reality, if doing this risks getting you either a) unfavourable treatment from that boss or b) the sack (more probably), what options do you have?

I know there will be various replies to this thread that go something like -
"if that's the treatment you get, then do you really want to fly for that operator?"

Well the answer is, no, I don't want to work for them given corner cutting. But it took me such a long time and a sh!t load of effort to get this job that I'll be damned if I have to do it all over again, just to be treated in the same way.

What's the answer? I'm not really sure. Maybe a more comprehensive input from CASA. Probably too unrealistic and expensive to implement, but more regular audits? More CASA employees on the ground making visits to operators? The list could go on and on.....

Anyway, this is a really interesting thread but alas, one I don't think will come up with a realistic answer.

[Centaurus]

I have a few mates currently flying in Northern Australia, and talking to them all they ALL are concerned about both the safety of the aircraft they fly, and the complete lack of a safety culture of the organisation that they work at.


At the risk of sounding cynical, it is the view of many pilots over the years that your statement above echoes the facts of life in general aviation "Up North". In other words a big yawn and a tired, "So - what's new about that?" Same with much of Australian GA.

CASA regulators can't be everywhere and remember that many FOI are themselves former general aviation pilots who have experienced the same cycle up north or elsewhere. In other words they are not fazed because they know it will never improve.

Along with their chief pilots who are ultimately responsible for the behaviour of their pilots and engineers, there are too many shonky operators - and Australia is a huge land impossible for CASA to police effectively. In any case local magistrates know SFA about aviation and let culprits go free with a smack on the wrist.

CASA, through its official magazine Flight Safety Australia, (with all its advertisements for aviation products) can only "educate" just like the TV advertisements on drink driving. In the opinion of many, both a great waste of money.

It's nice to be altruistic about the need to change safety cultures but it ain't never going to happen. Same applies to the safety cultures (now that's an oxymoron) of Asian, Middle East and African aviation. I can just see the next headline - 737 crashes and burns in Asia while landing too fast on a wet runway. Real men don't go around is their mantra. It's our culture, man..

Far better for the heart to sit down and enjoy a nice cup of tea and a good book rather than bash your brains trying to fix flight safety up north.:ok:

[Checkboard]

"stand up for yourself and demand to the boss that safety standards are kept".

... perhaps, but as a professional pilot you should be demanding the highest standards of yourself - and as 95% of GA is a single pilot operation that takes care of most of the problem. Far more accidents are due to "pilot error" than a mechanical failure.

Case in point: I joined a GA freight company, flying piston twins on bankruns. I found the pilots there regularly (i.e. every morning) flying one or two hundred kilos overweight for the first take-off out of the city heading west.

Shifty GA operator, or just bad pilots?

I asked them why they were doing it, and they said that the operation always filled full tanks in the city (cheaper fuel) and loaded whatever freight turned up (max load for the day is always at the city heading out, and you drop off load at each destination west-bound). I simply refused to do that and instead loaded max fuel at the midday stop, and half fuel in the city. I didn't ask the boss, just flew the aircraft legally.

When the boss noticed the fuel bills, I explained what I was doing, and why, and he was fine with it. He actually had no idea that the aircraft were leaving overweight, and said that that practice had started when the run was new, before the freight load increased.

All it took was one guy saying "Hey - this isn't legal, and as such it isn't right." In my experience a lot of GA pilots don't have the confidence to do that.

You can't complain about your job being on the line for speaking up, if you've never tried speaking up.

[Crew rest.]

the FAA and the NTSB asked each of these pilots, if you were that concerned about it, why did not a single person contact the FAA or NTSB.

Some years ago, I reported to CASA that an owner/chief pilot may have a mental illness and was behaving in a way that was a safety threat. The FOI told me that "you understand that if we investigate this, you will probably never work in aviation again".

Well I did and I still do.

[Sunfish]

The problem Puff is called "The double bind problem" aka damned if you do and damned if you don't.

There are a number of contributing factors, one of which is that confusing and draconian nature of Australian Aviation legislation and regulations.

Then there is that nature of CASA....

Then there is the taxation treatment of aviation....

[bogdantheturnipboy]

I have been in GA for 7 years and worked for 5 operators and I have thought about this topic a great deal, ie how unsafe GA is and how can we make GA the safest it can be. Not one of the operators I have worked for had a great safety culture. I don't think it is just one issue that needs to be addressed; Legislation and 'grey' areas certainly don't help, old aircraft and dodgy maintenance have always been a worry, operators who push pilots and CPs who are puppets. The thing that I find the most worrying and perhaps the most difficult to address is the pilots themselves. There seems to be ( just from my perspective and experience) so much willingness to push the boundaries and the rules. In one job I had, I regularly was a passenger on company flights and first hand saw the way other pilots flew. My estimate is that about 80% of those pilots regularly broke rules all the time. You name they did it. From flying overweight, refueling with passengers on board and flying vfr flights in IMC (you could almost say that this was an SOP for some pilots). And it isn't just breaking the rules that is a concern but always pushing the boundaries and always choosing the riskiest option eg instead of back tracking and using a full length ( I am not talking a 3km runway either) taking a very short intersection departure to save 2 minutes and a drop of fuel. I could mention a million a one examples, I am sure you get the drift.
Yes that are lots of things that contribute to a strong safety culture but I am convinced more and more the the pilots themselves are the weakest link. Unfortunately if you give many an inch they take a mile.

As a pilot who is very serious about safety it is very difficult to know what to do sometimes. What do you do when the 'worst' pilot in your company is the CP? What do you do when CASA give the company the big thumbs up when you know they only have to dig a little deeper to find "stuff". What do you do when you return to a departure point because the weather meant it was unsafe and illegal to continue flying and yet the owner screams at the ops staff to send a real f***ing pilot?

I personally don't know what to do about all the problems in GA except that to adopt certain attitudes. In my opinion pilots that are serious about safety in GA can do two things: 1) make sure that you constantly critique yourself and your standards. Make sure your knowledge is sharp and get 'help' for the things you are not so good at. Make sure you are the best pilot you can be and always aim for excellence instead of mediocrity. 2) Have the attitude to try and improve some things at every GA company you work. It may be small, it may not seem to have a huge impact. It doesn't mean you have to make a song a dance, threaten to phone CASA or jump and down - it could just be that you make an effort to 'teach' the ops manager a thing or two about the challenges of flying in poor weather. It could mean that you find another location for drum fuel to be located. It could mean that you instigate regular pilot meetings where you talk about safety issues. There are so many things that we can do to improve things. Yes it is bloody hard and many time I have felt like I was banging my head against a wall! But if every pilot adopts these attitudes and we work together more than it will go a long way.

[HappyBandit]

Bogdan

Well said mate!!!

[Mach E Avelli]

CASA claim to be concerned about ageing aircraft, and so they should be. Messrs Cessna, Piper and Beech never anticipated that their aircraft would be in service for 40 years and 30,000 hours.

But until CASA gets off its collective arse and puts experienced airworthiness people out in the field, armed with flashlights and inspection mirrors and the will to crawl into confined spaces and look at structures, part numbers etc we sit on a ticking time-bomb. One day very soon there will be a fatal accident due to an old worn-out or improperly maintained aircraft. Unless it kills a dozen high-profile mining executives, nothing much will happen for another couple of years while ATSB investigates and recommends. All this time we will still be exposed to this risk.

Ditto with flight operations. Instead of ramping pilots to make sure their charts are the latest amendment and their licence is in their pocket with a signature on the right page (whoop-de-doo) how about weighing the pax and cargo, dipping the fuel tanks, doing some calculations, testing the navigation systems and instruments? Oh, and sitting in on checkrides on very short notice.

Desk-top audits are a cop-out.

[Wally Mk2]

Safety at any level never lone the bottom end (GA) starts with the pilot him/herself.
Aviation is a business where the main aim is to make money. From QF to Joe Bloggs charter the bottom line is what governs what condition the 'tools' are kept in.
Safety in aviation world over is tenuous at the best of times the only guaranteed (well close to it) safety net that you have for yr own personal safety is you yourself, yr own decisions.
Remember CASA are made up of people no different than the rest of us they can't control the industry any better than you or I could, nobody could, it's all about risks, calculated risks & YOU hold the 'calculator':ok:
If you feel unsafe go thru the normal channels & if that doesn't fix it get out !!! There's no prizes for hero's in this game


Wmk2

[Mach E Avelli]

Wally, noble words... But.... While most of us old crusties can afford to bail out any time we become compromised, the kids struggling for that magic 3000 hours (or whatever the airlines want this week), are not in such a strong position. Therefore it is down to CASA to do what their mandate says.

[bythenumbers]

I have already been shot at in another thread for saying this but...

To you guys out there blasting around this beautiful country this is my advice.

Know your own limits.
Know you aircraft's systems.
Know the rules that apply to you and your operation.
Use them all to your advantage.

Solve problems; Dont say "No I wont do it." Say "I wont do it that way but how about this."

In the end it is your life and the life of your passengers that will pay the ultimate price if you don't take a stand.

[tmpffisch]

Safety at any level never lone the bottom end (GA) starts with the pilot him/herself.

I agree Wally in essence, but seeing some of these bottom end GA companies that don't have a safety culture and leave it up to the pilots manage their own standards and 'safety gap', doesn't work; as peer pressure and competition gets the worst of the pilot. When a pilot doesn't join in with the group, they get osterized.
The culture needs to be set from top of the organisation down for them to stand any chance on improving safety.

[Wally Mk2]

"Mach" I hear yr buddy & concur but it has to be said...."what price a life"
Those 'kids' won't become bitter & twisted old codgers like us :E if they don't take hold of the safety reign themselves, no one else is gunna do it sadly:sad:

'tmpffish' I also hear ya & yr right but there are many a pilot lying up there against some forgotten hill due a lack of a structured safety culture and being as green as a blade of grass works against these kids in this ****ty industry.

CASA= "Can't Always Save Aviators"


Wmk2

[snoop doggy dog]

Puff, all you needed to do was look closer to home around the time of the Chalks Mallard in the U.S in 2005; ie Transair.

Similar situation and CASA was fully aware of who was leaving and so on.

All covered up and 18months later, 15 killed in Nth Qld and sometime later, another 3 in PNG :mad:

[QSK?]

What I can't reconcile in my head is that if I happen to be the owner/operator of an electrical trade business in Australia and one of my employee electricians gets electrocuted, Workplace Safety would move heaven and earth to undertake a thorough review of my company's safety procedures and regulatory compliance with a view to building a legal case against me - possibly resulting in the demise of my business and the cancellation of my electrical licence.

If a commercial pilot gets killed or seriously injured in GA, why doesn't CASA apply the same level of diligence that Workplace Safety would apply; after all a pilot getting killed whilst on duty could also be construed as a Workplace Safety accident, couldn't it? Why are shonky operators, therefore, allowed to continue business? Shouldn't their licences be cancelled as well if they are deemed to criminally negligent?

[puff]

Glad to stir some debate, quite sad with some of the replies though. Safety is no accident in ANY industry, look at industries such as the maritime/trades(worksites) and mining which had horrific standards in workplace accidents.

Whilst they are all STILL dangerous the culture of safety in all of them has improved when the regulators, the companies AND the staff said enough was enough. Sadly for safety to really matter, it takes EVERYONE involved to carry though with it properly. Companies have mantles of 'Zero Harm, workplace committees, workplace health and safety officers, audits etc. Yes some of it's a bit over the top, but again it's all about a culture. The easiest way to get sacked these days it's for unsafe acts in the workplace.

Safety on large contructions sites didn't come about for no reasons, eventually the workers got sick of losing their mates and started to ALL refuse to do dangerous and dodgy things, eventually the company HAD to improve safety if they wanted the job to be done.

Nothing in aviation will change until senior pilots, led by managements own push for safety to instill in new inexperienced pilots that the safe option is the ONLY option, and that dangerous acts and breaking the law will result in discipline or being sacked. That other pilots stick together, if one refuses to fly an aircraft because its unairworthy, that they ALL refuse to fly it. That pilots that turnback because of weather are congratulated rather than critised. I'm waiting for the responses basically saying I live in a dreamland, sadly it's only in aviation, because anywhere else those things above are the norm and whats expected of employees.

Examples of things you will never see in aviation, an old labourer having a go at a young fella on a worksite trying to carry too many building materials, saw this bloke pull him aside and basically tell him there were no prizes for being a hero, get someone to help you lift heavy things, and stop being a dic*head. He said that when he was younger it was a competition to see what sort of man you were and you were egged on by everyone else to carry more and more, and the more the carried the better you were. Those same blokes by 40 were in agony with back problems and most barely worked after their 40s with chronic injuries. He told this bloke that there was no one around smart enough to tell me I was being stupid, and he had all sorts of body injuries because of it. This is an example of peer to peer pushing safety. Work colleages looking after each other.

Transport company getting mechanics to fix vehicles on the side of the road when they broke down, over the year several were injured(one killed) due to being hit or run over by passing traffic. Agreements between the company and the union means that now all the vehicles are towed back to the workshop and repairs undertaken in the controlled envionment in the workshop. Anyone that breaks this rule, even on the mantle of trying to save the company money on towing fees is disciplined for risking themselves, do it too often and you will be fired for it. Example of the company and the employees working together.

Imagine the above in aviation, Centaurus mentions Asia and their culture, even they on the whole just haven't sat on their hands and said we're going to do nothing. Look at the safety records in the past of Thai and Korean, they haven't had fatals in years, Korean really has tried to change its culture after it's row of accidents. I'm not saying they are perfect, but at least they didn't just say, well we're asian we don't go around and we'll kill some people once in a while live with it.

Look at airline accidents where in some cases pilots were at fault, but because of them pilots now have EGPWS vs GPWS, they have TCAS and do jet upset training along with CRM to name a few. All of these have come out of previous accidents where operators have attempted to fix whatever caused it. Accidents are always sad, it's tragic when we don't learn and try to stop what caused it in the first place from happening over and over again.

Wally is right, old blokes do have the balls to say no, older blokes won't be pushed into things by CPs, and most of the time CPs wouldn't even bother to try it, but the older guys also have the hours and the experience and are FAR more likely to be able to find work if they did walk on the grounds of safety. Younger guys are in the negative in all the above, and sadly in some cases the older guys don't support, mentor and help younger pilots that are pushed into unsafe acts by employers, they did it when they were young and inexperienced and see no problem with it now.

Whats improved to fix GA safety, ASIC cards and 6 foot fences around the airport ?

Centaurus is right, perhaps I should have a cuppa and put it down to 'just aviation', but I really feel each time a family has to bury their son, daughter, husband/wife is owed that the other people involved in the industry actually care about their loss, and will do everything they can to try and stop another family having to go through what they are, rather than just put it into the too hard basket.

[DirtySanchezcousin]

Puff, you need to read the decision handed down only last week from the Administrative Appeals tribunal in the case of Avtex V CASA.

Alot of the material presented during this hearing was based on a very poor safety culture from the company and the senior member who presided over this hearing has gone into alot of detail regarding this exact issue when handing down his decision.

It makes a good read.

[bythenumbers]

Agree with dirty. A good read and some interesting statements by a few of the drivers.

If anyone in the game at the moment feels like speaking up in their operation but feels they cant for fear of ridicule or dismissal. Have a read and see what road you are heading down. It might be hard to speak up. But it will be harder to see another needless preventable accident occuring that could possibly have been avoided with a 10 minute chat.

[SgtBundy]

I read the decision and found it thoroughly disturbing. What is the answer in a culture like that where even if there is no explicit threats but there is plenty of "discouragement" and pressure especially in an environment with few jobs and plenty waiting in the wings?

I particularly found the meetings about icing to be absurd "just get up there and see what it is like". Even worse by the report CASA had been in there trying to improve the place yet no action was taken by management. Its unfortunate it took 3 deaths for that to come to a halt.

[aussie027]

Some excellent replies in this read. :ok:
Well done everyone! :ok:

As stated above pilots young or old need to use their brains and their voices and take a stand when being pressured by their employers to do the wrong thing and break the rules.

To all the younger pilots reading, remember, sometimes that is the ONLY way that you are going to live to be an "older" pilot!!
Is the job really worth it?? Is any job worth dying for????
Apparently there are quite a few that people think are,…trust me , they are definitely not!!

I have taken a stand on numerous occasions and am still here as a result of it.
For Eg- It cost me money on occasions but I let the CP/owner take the trip when he wanted me to go out overweight for eg.

If everything goes as planned and you bend/break the rules 99 times out of 100 you MAY get away with it, (depending on what you are trying to do). If it’s the day it doesn’t and something actually goes wrong then no one can help you when the ATSB or Feds come a looking.
IF you survived the event and depending what happened you can more than likely kiss goodbye to your licence and career. Not to mention being wide open for a lawsuit later.

YOU primarily as PIC, not your CP or Boss.

Remember your car insurance policy is not liable to pay out if you are DUI or breaking the law and have an accident. Same with your aircraft insurance AFAIK.
So who is going to pay for all that bent metal and / or peoples injuries.??

Checkboard's experience with the freight company is a classic example of how 1 person standing up and saying, "Wait a minute, that's not bloody right, I'm not going to do that and neither should the rest of us", probably saved himself and everyone else in the company at some point too. He broke the chain.

Going out 1-200kg or more overweight in some clapped out 30yo+ piston twin??. :eek::eek:
Holy Crap, come on, using the curvature of the earth to get airborne on the clapped out aircrafts best day???
What about if today’s the day that once in a lifetime EFATO actually happens to you???
Here are 2 very wise pieces of advice given to me many years ago by my senior pilots--

REMEMBER (especially in the cockpit), “ It doesn’t matter WHO is right, it ONLY MATTERS WHAT is right”!! :ok:

ALSO REMEMBER, as a Pilot your 3 main priorities in order of importance should be—
SAFETY,….. Customer/Pax satisfaction and then Company profitability. :ok:

They should be your company's priority order too!!

Any attempt to reorder those usually ends up costing more than a few lousy dollars in the long run.
Fly safe and fly smart.:ok:

[Johnny_56]

Great thread, and some great replies.

From my (limited) experience in this industry "safety culture" like "safety management system" etc is treated like a buzz word that customers like to see around the place.

I believe to evolve a safety culture in an organization, or industry for that matter, requires leadership. In a company this needs to come from the CP & management etc. Unfortunately, as many have alluded to, hoping that a young pilot fresh into his 1st or 2nd hard fought job will not push the boundaries to try to be seen doing the 'right thing' is unrealistic. I've been there and taken off overloaded and out of balance etc, hopefully you mature fast enough to learn that you're being a knob and you're not as smart as you think you are.

Say "I wont do it that way but how about this."

In these situations CP's, managers, owners & senior pilots all have a part to play and give some advice. These senior people should be guiding the less experienced pilots out there, not turning a blind eye and hoping they learn along the way.

The AFAP has a part to play in this also. Unions should be out there pushing for better standards. This includes educating and encouraging it's members to do the right thing and what the right thing is. Other unions do this which is part of the reason safety standards in other industries have improved.

"If you think safety is expensive, wait till you've had an accident"

Fly safe kids

Johhny

[DirtySanchezcousin]

You should all read section 28 of the act and take note about where the responsibility lies

Read the decision handed down by senior member Fice RE Avtex v CASA .

Some great guys ( ex Avtex pilots) stood up during those precedings to make a real difference to minimise the risk of someone else having to die!

[Kulwin Park]

Some possible thoughts for CASA to get a better visual insight into the industry, and what rules Pilots Engineers and Operators are breaking, is to:

Make more instant and short-time-notice inspections, in regards to either being present on a training or charter flight in the back seat. Little notice and also not telling people that it is a CASA official in the back would help, as operators/pilots would conduct their ops the same, and maybe catch out the dodgy ones at 'tunipboy' pointed out above.
Make random and again short-time-notice inspections into maintenance hangars, without the 7 day notice that they are coming, giving time for operators/maintainers to cover up and hide away work that is considered Unservicable.
CASA to be present at more GA airports at least once or twice a month, for the day, to just observe operations, and to catch up with any people doing the wrong thing, even if just a fine free warning.The police in every state currently do it, on our roads, inspection spots unannounced, and all in the name to reduce deaths, and improve awareness and safety. Why can't CASA take a greater safety approach to aviation to weed out the individuals that make the industry unsafe. I'm not saying the people that are struggling and trying to make a living (normally they are the ones following every rule, and not cutting safety costs), but the operators, pilots or maintainers that are skipping on every safety to quickly get another charter done or a job out.

Cheers, KP

[QSK?]

Another saying that may be relevant to this thread:

"One VALIDATES what one TOLERATES"

(Thanks Dad)

So I guess the lesson here is that if one tolerates unsafe practice, then one eventually gets to the point where they validate that unsafe practice is OK.

[SpyderPig]

I may be speaking out of place here having not worked in GA yet, but having worked in construction and in my current role we have company OH&S managers. They are ground level workers who just have an extra role in reporting any OH&S issues. If I have a problem with something, I tell them, they advise me on wether to continue with it or not and then take it to managment to have the problem resolved. They then keep me updated on any progress or results. I've been on a job site where it was tools down for 2 days untill a water/electical issue was resolved.

I dont know how/if this could work in GA. Could someone who is not a managment pilot(I know in GA there is usually only the CP) be an OH&S rep for the pilots? Who would be willing to take the role, knowing that it will prob put you in the s#% with the boss? But at the end of the day you could save a work mates life!

I guess this also brings about the chance of that person using it and being willing to bend the rules in order to look good or get ahead. The cycle continues.......

In a perfect world eh?

[Mach E Avelli]

KP you are spot on. Problem is CASA people are reluctant to go out in the summer heat up north or the winter ice down south to do what you suggest. Also, as you say, by giving notice of their rare field visits they give everyone time to tidy up the immediate mess.
But CASA inspectors need to dig deeper than mere external visual inspections of hangars, aircraft and operations. Digging deep is something they appear ill-equipped to do, instead focussing on the state of manuals and paperwork which they know will be an easy target in your typical smaller organisation.

[beaver_rotate]

Safety culture comes from the top down. And in this case, the BA Chief Pilot in CNS (an ex CASA FOI) couldn't even spell culture I am sorry. A horrible disgrace of a Chief Pilot (and I have witnessed first hand incident after incident). Not as a employer... but as a Student.

[baron_beeza]

We are hearing a lot about old aircraft, on this thread and on a number of similar currently open.

I have worked on aircraft, military, GA and airline for many years... some new and some old.
I have worked on brand new military aircraft,and also a fleet that had been retired from civil use before going on to a new lease of life. One had the highest landings of it's type in the world.

Similarly I have done the same with airliners. the oldest of it's type then replaced with brand spankers.

We are talking GA, - is that different..?
Ok
I worked on these when they were brand new 30 years ago, - I am still working on them..some the exact same machines.

I honestly cannot see too many differences, the machines I work on all conform to their Type Certificates etc, some are even better than they were new. I know my machine must be close. Years of mods and a couple of modern improvements.
I concede that cosmetically this is not always the case.
As regards the ageing aircraft programme, yes.. the inspection schedules have been modified as we know that the originals were never intended to cater for the life span these machines are now achieving.
The big thing is that a lot of thought has been put into it and known problem areas have been identified.

Now the big thing is accidents, or rather crashes.

I have seen many, many new machines destroyed.. and it was not due to the age of the structure of the machine.

I have lost many friends and personally knew some of the aircraft that have crashed over the years.

I have worked in many hangars and spoken to guys that worked on aircraft that were lost, before my time. Almost without exception the story was he same.
The engineers don't blame the machine for the loss..

One exception, in my experience.... one machine, where the wings departed in flight, even that had a history.. and a story.
That was a 1940's machine and the attach bolt was a known problem... I think that was a major engineering slip-up, perhaps coupled to an overstress situation. I am not aware of contents of the full report.

But I look in my logbook and see the aircraft and guys no longer with us. There must be close to 20 names of instructors or check pilots now departed;
Wire strikes, tree strikes, overweight takeoff, lost, lost and since discovered, weather related, turbulence related, CFIT, fuel exhaustion, fault finding over FTFM, flying up dead end valleys, low level manoeuvres (beat up) and I guess inexplicable stupidity.

I was about the scene through the '70's, saw many new machines arrive, assembled and put into service. GA was humming.. but there were crashes, and many of them.




I am sure that when my time comes and I ask these guys about it, how many do you think will be blaming the aircraft ?

I am thinking that most will accept that they had one close call too many.. They were good men, and honest. I am sure they will front up with the truth.

F1 drivers know the risks and stats.. they still drive.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Hey Baron

That is an EXCELLENT post :D

The #1 way for a pilot to kill himself and his pax is STILL to fly a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground - Lockhart River, Benalla, Mt Hotham, Bathurst, Lake Liddell to name a few.

Somewhere along the way a pilot has made an error of judgement or an error of perception, and it wasn't the aircraft's age at fault.

Human error continues to cause 70-80% of accidents in aviation

Of interest in the Airtex ruling was the admission by several pilots that although they felt pressure to not make entries on the MR, they make the entries without the feared repercussions.

On many occasions, Pilots have had to demonstrate great skill to get themselves out of a scrape - but often that scrape is of their own making.

If you feel your company is pressuring you to do the wrong thing, get your pilot group together over a beer and look each other in the eye and promise each other to stand your ground. The AFAP would do well to encourage this but it is a forlorn hope :ugh:

Go out and buy Tony Kern's book Flight Discipline, read it, and then ask yourself if you're a true professional. If not... step up to the mark.

[Kowolski]

Trouble is safety culture often doesn't come from the top. It's simply not there or tranished by financial desire. In that situation all we can do is "try" and upward manage it. The challenge is it's often the new guys at the coal face wearing the brunt of the consequences and they aren't skilled in upward management.

In an absence of a safety culture there are three choices... change it, leave, or wear the consequences. To that effect we are sometimes part of the problem in that we can't change it yet we stay.

It's not an easy thing. I've left three companies because I just wasn't prepared to wear the consequences. You miss out on hours and income. It's a challanging industry, particularly GA.

I think the answer is "we" need to change. We need to stop working for organisations lacking a safety culture. Easier said than done but if we did this it would force change on them or they'd be out of business.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Funny you mention F1 beeza, they have an approach to safety that we could only dream of.

What makes this so sad is that F1 is only a sport and the only ones at risk are those people whom choose to be involved, not some fare paying passenger who think they are safe.

Great discussion, I hope it keeps going.....

[remoak]

As far as I can see, particularly on the Kiwi side of the pond, "safety culture" and "GA" are mutually-exclusive terms that cannot be used in the same sentence.

Don't know much about CASA, but over here the CAA deserve much of the blame for steadfastly refusing to hold operators to account. They just assume that operators are playing by the rules unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We all know how well that approach works...

[victor two]

safety culture in any organisation is complex and influenced by a wide range of factors. Poor culture is not just "management" willfully demanding that young pilots fly overweight aircraft or exceed duty hours. Culture is also incedibly hard to change and although the overall resposnsibilty will rest with company management to identify and fix the adverse or serious issues, sometimes issues are deliberately disguised or not reported by these same pilots who complain about the poor safety in GA.
I used to worked for a company in the NT that had a bunch of pilots who whacked on constantly about the poor safety culture in GA and these were the very same guys who would turn up to work hungover, ignore basic company SOPs because they didnt agree with them, go formation flying on scenics, carry 13 pax (kids) into communities in 6 seat planes and go off low flying at every opportunity. That was seen by them as some sort of "rite of honour" as a GA bush pilot when it suited them but they were first to whinge about things if they ended up doing something borderline unsafe when it didn't suit them. That was somehow different and was always managements fault!

When every GA pilot starts acting in a totally professional manner when they are all alone out in the bush and noone is watching them is when you will see a signifcant change in GA safety.

Safety culture has to involve everyones best intentions or it's a pointless discussion. Managers cant always fix stupidity!

[puff]

victor two - I see what your saying but again how many of the 'better GA' outfits have pilots that act in this manner? I feel the answer is not many, because they know that sort of behaviour would not be tolerated and they would never risk losing a job in a quality safe company paying above award.

They will only act in the ways you describe if they get away with it, and they have no fear of anything happening if they were caught doing it.

I totally agree that some pilots do act in the way you describe, and pilots have a huge part to take in improving safety culture, but it has to be lead from management, they have the MOST to lose in the event of an accident financially, they have a duty to ensure their pilots are operating safely, it's their operating certificate, money and reputation are on the line daily.

Where are Transair/Aerotropics and Airtex now ? Too bad the blood of 18 people also paid the price along with those 3 operators lack of commitment to safety.

[Up-into-the-air]

Safety Culture and GA - The Owner

It is great to see a discussion like this.:ok: It should go on more often.

In the development of a safety culture discussion - the aircraft has been blamed, the LAME, the operator, insurance broker, banker, lease provider, CASA, ASA, airport operator, the Chief Pilot, operation of AOC, under/ over [less likely] charging for work, the pilot, etc.

The safety culture in most cases starts by a co-operative of all involved.

If one part of the circle is not present, or broken, as has been recently said "S!!t happens".

The pilot at the end of the day, if an aircraft is OK to go, has the say in the operational matters - load, weather, navigation, route, fuel load, pilot condition, final aircraft condition, length of runway, instructions from operator, instructions from controller and the rest [including what the pilot is up to - eg. DAMP]!!

So the pilot before, during and after the flight has a whole range of things that will affect the safety culture and can drive [at very least - influence] where all this goes in the short and long term. The appropriate use of the Maintenance release is a good start.

Overloading, non-recording of hours, air-frame overloads in flight or operating with a known defect are issues that is very hard for an owner [a very large percentage of aircraft operated in GA are not owned by the operator, but leased or cross-hired in by operators] to detect. The owners rely very much on the operator [and in the end the pilot] to do their job correctly.

Overload Example

We recently have come to hand with information about a series of overloads in an aircraft [in which we have an interest] being overloaded by 2 - 300 kg on a series of missions. This overload was by up to 40% extra to the total ex-fuel load. There have been a series of turbo malfunctions in the aircraft, prior to being "told" of the over-loading's. This has serious issues for the owner in terms of maintenance, over-boosting/ over-use of turbo's etc.

The operator no longer has the aircraft.

Ultimately, the owner has to spend money on things that "go bang", shorten life of components, result in early engine tear-downs etc.

This means resources [money] is diverted from new aircraft, better avionics, updates of internals etc.

The owner/LAME cannot work out why the extra costs occur and "blames" the component supplier/ manufacturer. ATSB becomes involved with the "smoking hole" and another family wonders why.

A good safety culture and fair competition goes a long way to ensuring the mission is achieved and safely. We can do this, but if any individual breaks a link in the chain, we are all on a down hill run.

We must co-operate to achieve these goals and we will have a viable dynamic industry.

[WhoWasPhone]

This is a great thread topic and should be discussed more often!

Considering i'm almost up to my Comm training; it is a particularly worrying subject especially since "Up North" is probably where i'll get my first/second job.

A previous post entails notifying CASA and the NTSB under your own name.. and then subsequently being informed that.. "If we investigate this you must realise you may probably not ever work in aviation again"

Is there any way you can anonymously tip off CASA/NTSB to investigate gross safety protocol violations?

But then there is the problem of the enevitable witch hunt that ensues within the company.

If found out, your reputation is tarnished and you effectively become a martyr for the sake of Safety standards.

[Jack Ranga]

but having worked in construction and in my current role we have company OH&S managers.


Just as the medical profession has studied and used a lot of CRM techniques so could the GA aviation fraternity learn a lot from the construction industry.

Having just implemented an OH&S system into a building business (at a fair cost :ouch:) if the same requirements were to apply to GA the industry would be out of business tonight. Why is it good enough for the construction industry to be made to protect it's employees but not aviation?

Head in the sand stuff, all too hard isn't it!

[Checkboard]

Is there any way you can anonymously tip off CASA/NTSB to investigate gross safety protocol violations?

REPCON - Aviation Confidential Reporting Scheme (http://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary/repcon-aviation.aspx)
"REPCON is a voluntary confidential reporting scheme. REPCON allows any person who has an aviation safety concern to report it to the ATSB confidentially. Protection of the reporter's identity and any individual referred to in the report is a primary element of the scheme.

Any matter may be reported if it endangers, or could endanger the safety of an aircraft. These matters are reportable safety concerns.

Examples include:

unsafe scheduling or rostering of crew; or
crew or aircraft operator bypassing safety procedures because of commercial pressures; or
non compliance with rules or procedures."


But then there is the problem of the enevitable witch hunt that ensues within the company.
If the CAA are investigating, that will start with an Audit - and they will pay particular attention to the areas reported. The company may never realise that someone "dropped a dime" on them - and even if they do they will be too busy with the investigation.

If found out, your reputation is tarnished and you effectively become a martyr for the sake of Safety standards.
Rubbish - You overestimate the influence of a small, recognised dodgy, operator in the market. There simply isn't any "network of bosses" getting together to swap "black files" on new pilots. :rolleyes: The only guys who might listen to a whinge are the same type of small, dodgy operator - the good guys will probably applaud their downfall (and unfair competition) rather than care about the cause of it.

[A37575]

[QUOTEIf the CAA are investigating, that will start with an Audit -[/QUOTE]

I once submitted a CAIR report on a flying school which had a serious defect on one of its aircraft and which an LAME had signed off as OK. Within a week I had an indignant call from the CFI who demanded why I had gone to ATSB.

The CAIR system was supposed to be confidential of course. Knowing this I asked the CFI why he thought it was me. He said a mate of his being an airworthiness inspector had told him. The problem being most AW inspectors were LAME's themselves and of course probably remain in contact one way or another with their mates in the industry. This happened in Cairns 20 years ago where a local AW inspector was drinking mates with several operators and gave them a heads up that a visit would take place at a certain time and to get their act in order before he dropped in officially.

I think the latest ATSB reporting system requires ATSB to formally send a de-identified version of the "confidential" report they have received, directly to the operator and ask for his version of the truth. Even Blind Freddy would guess correctly who had originated the complaint and the individual would risk getting the DCM you dobbing bastard

[Checkboard]

An inspector wouldn't have had access to the reporter's identity. Ever thought that your boss was making the same phone call to all of his employees - and you just bottled and gave the game away?

If you're more worried about your job then about the safety breeches, suck it up and stop your whinging. The poster asked if there was a confidential reporting scheme - there is and it's available for just this purpose.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I once (actually, in this case, more than once) squealed on a bloke who was doing all the wrong things as a PPL, and making my life more difficult in doing so.

Yeah, he was sort of my boss too.

Like A37575, an AWI told the PPL (a approved aviation welder) who dobbed.

:* := :yuk:

[Shell Management]

Safety culture has to involve everyones best intentions or it's a pointless discussion. Managers cant always fix stupidity!

They can select, training and if necessary remove.

[DERG]

Sometimes the managers need training....ring any bells Shell..maybe Gulf of Mexico?

[Tee Emm]

An inspector wouldn't have had access to the reporter's identity

Don't you bloody believe it. You weren't there. It happened, Sunshine...

[Shell Management]

DERG

I think you are thinking of a drilling accident that was Beyond Petroleum;)

[Brian Abraham]

Managers cant always fix stupidity!While true, unfortunately more often than not it's managers who have an over supply of stupidity.

[M14_P]

Safety culture, what safety culture? Time is money, money is time. That is GA in a nutshell...

For example, I was doing company training including a rating for a pilot...he wasn't particularly good, ended up declining giving him my signature, got an ear full from the boss of the company, I gave my reasons why I didn't think he was ready, he ends up causing tens of thousands of damage, thankfully no one got hurt at any stage, he ended up losing his job some 7-8 months later.
how ironic, the boss wanted him trained asap, to fill the gap (as he had stuffed around and now had no pilots.....), this chap wasn't ready, had a seriously shocking attitude and simply required more training, the boss got someone else to sign him off, all I was trying to do, was prevent a catastrophic accident which we could all see happening.
When he got the boot, it was music to my ears, nothing personal, but knowing that no one else was at risk was such a relief. I was so worried for months... :S

This is GA, sad state of affairs. But not to worry, I reckon it will barely in existance in 15 years.

[Mach E Avelli]

Something I hear sometimes is that they don't want to invest money in training someone only to have that person leave. To which my answer is "would you rather train people properly and have some of them leave, or train none of them and have all of them stay?"