10 dead in 42 days

[sinbinned]

There seems to have been a high incidence of general aviationtragedies in Australia over the past few weeks and I for one am wonderingwhy. Is it a seasonal trend, whether thatbe occupational such as fire-bombing or perhaps climatic – the pleasant weatherconditions seeing more private aircraft take to the skies or was there someother explanation. A search of accidentinvestigation reports on the ATSB website provided the following informationbut no obvious explanation. However Inoted a higher accident occurrence rate within the private sector.

Should we be concerned that in the past 42 days, inAustralia, there have been 10 lives lost in a total of 8 separate aviationaccidents involving VH registered aircraft? Or that in the period 18/10/13 – 25/10/13 (8 days) there were fiveaviation tragedies resulting in six lives lost.

Should we be further concerned that of those lives lost,only two were lost through direct involvement in dangerous occupations, i.e. – cropdusting (WA – VH-JAY Ayres Corp S2R Thrush) and firebombing (NSW – VH-TZJ - PZLWARSZAWA-OKECIE M-18A Dromader).

A further three of the accidents involved amateur builtaircraft (WA – VH-ALP Lancair Legacy, NSW – VH-CTE Rand Robinson KR-2, VIC –VH-ICZ Lancair Legacy), with a total of four lives lost.

Another of the accidents involved flight training operationswith one life lost (VIC- VH-AUT Cessna 182R).

While the remaining two accidents and three lives lost wereprivate operations (VIC – VH-KKM Cessna 182, QLD – VH-WAV Cessna 206G).

To give some comparison, in the same period in the previousyear (15/09/12 – 25/10/12) there were only two fatal accidents (VH-UXG andVH-LLF), considerably less than this year. Sadly however, the loss of life was high; VH-UXG claimed 6 lives, whilstVH-LLF was a single fatality.

State by State sees Victoria having the highest accidentrate for the period, with a total of three separate accidents and a loss offour lives. NSW and WA have both had two single fatal accidents each, acombined total of four lives lost. WhilstQld has only had a single accident, it resulted in a double fatality. South Australia, NT, Tasmania and the ACT didnot record any fatalities in that period.

The year-to-date sees a National total of 15 separate fatal aviationaccidents with 21 lives lost. Thatequates to a life lost every 14 days. Togive some perspective, if each of the victims of these accidents had twochildren, potentially, this year, 42 children of aviation families would havelost a parent, a staggering prospect.

I believe we should be concerned... very concerned. What do you believe?

[Jabawocky]

Coincidental spikes in data and over time this will average out to the norm.

I think you are over-thinking it far too much. :rolleyes:

[BEACH KING]

Wow!!. let me see.. We have:
- a newly registered poster
- bad initial spelling, punctuation and syntax, that morphs into articulate writing.
- narrow use of well researched statistics on a very newsworthy topic.

I call Journalist on the prowl, trying to get some Pprune "pilots say" quotes.

Let me imagine the headline. "Ban private flying before a school is hit"
"Are Pilots just outlaw sky Bikies?"
Well here are some facts for you:
Aviation is a form of transport. All forms of transport have an element of danger associated with them. Aircraft accidents are far more likely to be fatal due to the high speeds they operate with. All accidents are preventable, however about 27 people will die every year from aircraft crashes, 1000 will die from road accidents, and 20 will die from falling off horses. As we are humans, I can't see this changing much.

[Kharon]

Interesting site, Ausstats (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4125.0%7EJan%202013%7EMain%20Features%7EDeaths%7E320). Free and very user friendly. Seek and ye shall find.

[Creampuff]

The problem is that, in absence of an accident investigatory body with adequate resources and sufficient corporate competence and integrity to investigate these accidents properly and provide a useful report, we’ll never know.

It might be, as jabba suggests, just a random spike in the usual ways in which these tragedies occur. Or there could be a steady decline in the standard of airmanship. Or there could be a steady decline in airworthiness standards. Or all of the above or none of the above. Or...

We’ll never know.

Coincidentally, I laughed like a drain when I heard some underling from ATSB comment, in respect of the Ballarat Lancair accident, that the aircraft was not required to carry on-board recording devices that would have been helpful in determining the causes, or ruling out the causes, of the accident. Obviously the underling was living under a rock during the entirety of the ATSB’s ‘investigation’ of the ditching of NGA, and was in the toilet at the time Mr Dolan’s ‘beyond Reason’ Memo came out.

Yes, sinbinned: We should be very concerned. Someone should investigate the accident investigator. :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

There's always peeks & troughs in any form of transport accidents, auto accidents/deaths go thru the roof when there's public holidays just by sheer numbers of movements on the road so any increase in air movements due perhaps good weather or increased activities in other flying sectors will most likely increase the rate of accidents.

This is a sad time for aviators alike & their families.



Wmk2

[sinbinned]

Beechking Im not a Journalist. As for the syntax, I don't know what happened there, it wasn't typed that way. I am just an average person within aviation who is concerned that their colleagues are dying, nothing more, nothing less.

[sinbinned]

Cream puff, thank you for a constructive answer, and I have to agree with you.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Would be interesting to compare the accident rate of the five years 1975-1980, (ie what was probably the golden age of GA in Oz), with the last five years 2009-2013.

I would be surprised if it doesn't show an increase in the GA accident rate, with a corresponding increase in the fatality rate. :eek:

Just my perception of the last 40 years!

Dr :8

[alphacentauri]

How many people have died on our roads in the last 42 days? I think even the national Xmas road toll is higher than that. Just coincidence, I don't think it's a trend

Alpha


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Oriana]

Medical accidents.

That's a real eye opener.

[Up-into-the-air]

As referred to by the ferryman:

http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u608/vocasupport/aircraftfatalities_zps227723d1.png?t=1382856806

from ABS:

AIR ACCIDENTS

Between 2001 and 2010, the number of aircraft involved in accidents declined by 17%, from 151 in 2001 to 126 in 2010, with a low of 92 in 2006 (graph 24.25). The number of aircraft involved in fatal accidents declined from 18 in 2001 to 13 in 2010 with a low of 6 in 2002. In 2010, there were 16 fatalities involving registered civil aircraft, the same as 2009. This was a decrease of 48% from 2001.And Motor cars:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/6630eff525d4cdc1ca25763e0075754f/e82d2cf47781c8efca257a07001ac4c8/Body/0.8CFC%21OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

[Avgas172]

So far this year 15 people have been killed on Quad Bikes in Australia, a total of 19 in 2012 .... Living is a dangerous thing sometimes so we take the best steps we can to stay alive including, appropriate safety measures, education, and effective communication of the risks involved. Fly safe everyone.

[Shagpile]

I ask my non aviator friends if they have their car brakes serviced every 100 hours of driving. They obviously don't, but they still depend on them as a critical safety device every intersection.

I think there is too much maintenance on aircraft. Humans are willing to wear any risks associated with something if the utility is high enough.

-Living in Latrobe Valley next to a smoke factory [tick]
-Accepting a giant liquid chemical storage facility near major populations [tick]
-Standing room + No seatbelts on a train/bus [tick]
-Smelling that nice benzene, cancer-causing fumes at petrol stations [tick]

Ok the list is endless, yet the utility/safety/legislation is unbalanced with aviation. I'd like to see a study pair up flying experience/currency improving safety against lesser maintenance standards, like getting rid of TBO's and doing maintenance by inspection (oil analysis, etc). On a tangent, what kind of stupid idea is it pulling a new engine to pieces after ~2000hrs, then adding that rebuild risk to what could have otherwise been a nice working engine for another 2000hrs+.

My hypothesis would be that making aviation cheaper, thus encouraging more flying and experience would be equally as safe per million hours flown. And if not, divide by a utility score so if the productivity and usefulness increase from more flying rates, then we should be willing to accept the same safety standards as a motor vehicle, public bus or train in GA.

[deadcut]

Also look after your body and stop having heart attacks.

[Jack Ranga]

Interesting points Shagpile but will never change, if anything will get more restrictive. Whenever a group (LAME's) have vested interests they will protect them, fiercely.

[Shagpile]

Ranga I think you are right.

What I want to know is how we got to this point. I can accept the fare-paying public are after minimal risk (read: what they perceive as no risk). But GA is largely pilot + 0-3, like a car. Pretty much same profile of pax (friends, family).

Yet somehow over these years the standards too have become 5x higher than cars.

What I want to know is why the public require (at our expense and private enjoyment) that light aircraft confirm to a very high set of standards, higher than any other form of transportation when the risk to general public is so tiny.

[Brian Abraham]

Life is guaranteed to end in death.

[BEACH KING]

Beechking Im not a Journalist. As for the syntax, I don't know what happened there, it wasn't typed that way. I am just an average person within aviation who is concerned that their colleagues are dying, nothing more, nothing less.
OK Sinbinned, please accept my apologies. My family have been on the receiving end from gutter level journalism after an aviation tragedy, and it leaves a very sour taste. I see that you have raised a valid concern, and I incorrectly assumed you to be a journalist. I also meant no disrespect with the grammatical structure of the post, as I live in a very large glass house :uhoh:

[Jack Ranga]

I think we get/got to this point by trying to rule make for the lowest common denominator. It's the easiest way and allows those who rule make to be seen to be doing something. This then benefits the vested interests.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

While one might reasonably speculate what happened to VH-AUT (Cessna 182R) and VH-KKM (Cessna 182), VH-WAV (Cessna 206G) remains something of a mystery.

Dr :8

[sinbinned]

Im curious about your post about heart attacks, I sensed something specific in it, would you mind explaining pls?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

This summary from Paul Phelan is worth a read regarding the lack of action on the senate inquiries 26 recommendations. Note Warren Truss was at that time talking as the opposition now he holds the ministerial post so could/should act.

Truss demands action on Senate Committee?s ATSB/CASA recommendations | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1585)

There is a link in the article to another that summarizes the 26 recommendations.

[1a sound asleep]

The year-to-date sees a National total 21 lives lost.

Tell me the figures for each of the last 30 years. Figures from 1 year mean absolutely nothing. You cant suggest anything without looking at the complete statistics.

[RenegadeMan]

I ask my non aviator friends if they have their car brakes serviced every 100 hours of driving. They obviously don't, but they still depend on them as a critical safety device every intersection.

I think there is too much maintenance on aircraft. Humans are willing to wear any risks associated with something if the utility is high enough.

-Living in Latrobe Valley next to a smoke factory [tick]
-Accepting a giant liquid chemical storage facility near major populations [tick]
-Standing room + No seatbelts on a train/bus [tick]
-Smelling that nice benzene, cancer-causing fumes at petrol stations [tick]

Ok the list is endless, yet the utility/safety/legislation is unbalanced with aviation. I'd like to see a study pair up flying experience/currency improving safety against lesser maintenance standards, like getting rid of TBO's and doing maintenance by inspection (oil analysis, etc). On a tangent, what kind of stupid idea is it pulling a new engine to pieces after ~2000hrs, then adding that rebuild risk to what could have otherwise been a nice working engine for another 2000hrs+.

My hypothesis would be that making aviation cheaper, thus encouraging more flying and experience would be equally as safe per million hours flown. And if not, divide by a utility score so if the productivity and usefulness increase from more flying rates, then we should be willing to accept the same safety standards as a motor vehicle, public bus or train in GA.

Shagpile, the challenge for aviation (especially GA) is that it's a realm of human activity that's outside of most people's understanding and knowledge, therefore when an accident happens there appears to be terrible unquantifiable and unknowable risks that strike fear into the hearts of ordinary people who have no reference for what's happened.

Like has already been noted, at any given period like the one being discussed, many people are going to die in road crashes. Most people in the community abhor road crashes but will agree with an authority figure such as a police commissioner when that person appears on TV during a holiday period and makes a direct appeal that people need to slow down, not drink and drive, monitor their fatigue levels, obey the rules, take care, etc. What will virtually never happen though is people or groups in response to serious accidents calling for cars to be banned because (unlike the "mystery" of why an aircraft has crashed), it's generally fairly obvious what has caused a road crash (even the seemingly ridiculous ones where two cars travelling in opposite directions have a head-on for no apparently valid reason).

Unfortunately we'll always be subject to more "safety" rules, checks and balances that are of a dubious level of genuine risk reduction (like your 2000 hr TBO example that I agree is a poorly thought through ruling...often provocative rather than preventative maintenance) because we're involved in something regular people don't understand except that it's "terribly dangerous...." and when something is not understood, out comes nanny-state style of "protecting the public" rule making that's a response to fear, hence often not effective.

I think your hypothesis that safety levels would increase if it was less expensive has a fair degree of validity up to a point (i.e. if it's too cheap we'll have a different set of issues).

[Creampuff]

Humans have a morbid fear of plummeting to their deaths from 30,000’. They imagine that it’s a far worse way of dying than, say, smashing into a tree in a car at 120kph.

Of course it’s a nonsense.

But it’s part of the ‘mystique’ of aviation that justifies more and more rules to ‘prevent’ aircraft accidents.

It’s like ASICs. The façade of security makes the punters ‘feel’ safe.

[Old Akro]

One of the strengths and one of the weaknesses of aviation is that we keep better records of accidents than nearly any other industry (probably behind oil & gas and nuclear, but way ahead of medicine). That lets trolls like the one who started this thread create beat-ups.

Ask for statistics many deaths or injuries are caused by mistakes in our hospital system and see how far you get.

[deadcut]

I was referring to that crash in Darwin recently. Apparently it was a heart attack.

But while it may not be the case the amount of health related accidents sure have gone up. I guess it can be attributed to the stretching waistlines and the relaxed medical standards don't help either.

[Creampuff]

Who said a heart attack caused the crash, as opposed to the crash causing the heart attack?

If it was said, it was mere speculation. :=

[Up-into-the-air]

I don't often agree with creamie, but that is likely the case - the crash = the heart attack, not the heart attack causes the crash.

An example of a Nanchang at Moruya springs to mind, where there was not even a coroners inquiry over the death of the pilot and the crash:

Just "Crash caused by heart attack".

The description of the final manuavre by eye witnesses, for a series of Yak and Nanchang [basically exactly the same aircraft] is very similar both in OZ and overseas.

I have speculated - Is this due to some other cause [such as a flight control going wrong??] - we will never know when the Hempel report is read - as I have and see the issues raised in this.

Sorry for the slight thread drift.

[Old Akro]

I was referring to that crash in Darwin recently. Apparently it was a heart attack.

I did some research into this a while back. I don't recall much detail, but I do recall that it is very rare for a heart attack to cause a crash. It is however moderately common for a pilot to die after landing. I gather one's body keeps it together long enough to get out of the immediate situation.

An autopsy would be required to determine if it was a heart attack, and that generally takes longer than we've had. Nor would the results be publicly available - or at least until there was a coroners finding.

[sinbinned]

Old Arko

Troll?? Excuse me?? You know nothing about me or my motivation for starting this thread. Keeping records or not isn't the issue here and I'm not sure what your point is in that regard. Whether its written or not people have died, that is a fact, not a beat up. Id welcome your constructive comments but you don't need to be rude.

[Creampuff]

Well you’ve asked your question and received some answers. What now, not-troll?

[sinbinned]

Thanks for the clarification

[sinbinned]

Cream Puff, I don't know what next, I only have questions, not answers, concerns not solutions. If you want a hypothesis, Id say there will be nothing next, life goes on, for some of us at least.

[thorn bird]

hey hey guys, whats perhaps of interest is that despite all our "Rules" we are still not safer than other comparable countries. That should be an indication that the volume of rules dont necessarily transfer to the volume of accidents.

[Cactusjack]

Silly silly people around here arguing and throwing around hypotheticals. What we need here are two things;
A) Queensland's Campbell Newman. He can enact laws overnight that include the banning of all things aeronautical! That will at least fix Queensland's plane crash issues, and
B) Give the AG more powers. Powers to not only ban anything aeronautical but he can enact laws that prevent pilots congregating together, reading ERSA or Jepp charts or even ban them from wearing pilot uniforms and epaulettes, and make them hand them in.
Hell I can even see Campbell being enthroned as the new DAS come March. Imagine all that he could do to this scourge of the modern century, Aviation?

[bankrunner]

I did some research into this a while back. I don't recall much detail, but I do recall that it is very rare for a heart attack to cause a crash. It is however moderately common for a pilot to die after landing. I gather one's body keeps it together long enough to get out of the immediate situation.

My DAME and I had a chat about this a while back.

From memory (and I'm probably paraphrasing him horribly here), his view was that almost nobody dies at the controls of an aircraft of a heart attack or similar condition. When people have one coming they decide they're not really feeling tip top, and go to bed, where they die in their sleep. They don't use it as a cue that perhaps they should go flying!

[sinbinned]

I came across this document from RA-Aus and thought it relevant to this thread.

Safety: Recent RA-Aus accident history (http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/safety/intro2.html#fatal_accidents)

[sinbinned]

Hmmm Ausstats were pretty good right up until the 1995 Year Book Australia. Seems the figures they had listed for previous years aviation accidents don't correlate with the books from 1995 onwards, whats with that?

[Perspective]

ShagPile,
"Ok the list is endless, yet the utility/safety/legislation is unbalanced with aviation. I'd like to see a study pair up flying experience/currency improving safety against lesser maintenance standards, like getting rid of TBO's and doing maintenance by inspection (oil analysis, etc). On a tangent, what kind of stupid idea is it pulling a new engine to pieces after ~2000hrs, then adding that rebuild risk to what could have otherwise been a nice working engine for another 2000hrs+."

Renagademan,
"like your 2000 hr TBO example that I agree is a poorly thought through ruling...often provocative rather than preventative maintenance"

Jack Ranga,
"Whenever a group of LAME's have vested interests they will protect them, fiercely"

What the F$#& are you guys on. Honestly. Read your own posts again, and again, and have a think about what your suggesting/insinuating.
First we have someone suggesting TBO's are "Stupid", then lowering maintenance standards and see what happens,

Then we get someone suggesting TBO's are poorly thought through, Not arrived at through Generations of Aircraft Engine Building and maintenance experience gained by the Majors, including now Rotax,

and Finally, we have a suggestion that the only reason we have maintenance Regs is due to a Country, Nay, worldwide conspiracy by Maintainers, specifically qualified ones for Job Protection!!

:ugh: let thy head bangeth!! Let the Professional Pilots out there do what they do well, day in/day out and for Christ's sake, let the maintainers do what they are trained to do and have a think about the fact that the manufacturer's have just a little bit more of an idea about how they want their machines maintained than you.

[Perspective]

Good luck to you sir.
This is a topic far too broad to cover in a few
Pages of text, and a bit off topic anyway.
If treated right, I would happily let them go maybe 10%
Past TBO. That's it.

[Jack Ranga]

What am I on cuz? Man flu medication at the moment, it's pretty serious jazz, however, I don't think it's affecting my critical thought.

I'll keep it short, to the point. I've had a few run-ins with LAME's over the years as an aircraft owner. Blatant self interest. One was with a clown in the Sydney basin who instead of telling the truth, putting a logical argument (and quote) lied to me about special permits to fly. He lost a $16,000 job over that. Summarising for you: blatant self interest group protecting a status quo that feathers a nest quite nicely :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

'JR' I'd say that there are somewhat shifty people both sides of the fence there, A/C owners & spanner-men. Both have an agenda, right or wrong it's human nature for some to think unwise at times.

As for TBO's, well they are a bit like SWL's on cranes for EG. The crane could handle usually twice the SWL as placarded on the Jib but for a whole variety of reasons mainly to keep it as safe as possible it's halved or thereabouts because of unknown handling of same during it's nominated lifetime. Same goes for an A/C engine in many ways as you can't rely on an A/C owner to treat, respect & service an A/C's engine exactly to the manufacturers specs during it's whole life mainly 'cause of cost, the varied environment these engines can & do run in & the amount of different operators over the say 2000 hrs of it's 'expected' life.
Continuing on past an engines TBO on condition is testament to the fact that they 'may' run longer given a certain set of parameters met but that same 'acceptance' or belief isn't extended to commercial Ops, now I wonder why that is? Obviously that comes back to public safety & risk, the "SWL" factor:-).
A line in the engines 'sand' regrading hrs it could run has to be drawn somewhere for the good of all & the manufacturers are also covering their ass here as in 2day's crazy litigious world who'd in their right minds would wanna produce anything other than say cotton wool!

Wmk2

[Creampuff]

Actually, Perspective, the discussion about TBOs is directly on topic.

I will bet Brooklyn Bridge to a brick that none of the 10 deaths in the last 42 days was caused by an engine being past TBO.Continuing on past an engines TBO on condition is testament to the fact that they 'may' run longer given a certain set of parameters met but that same 'acceptance' or belief isn't extended to commercial Ops, now I wonder why that is?Wonder no more!

It’s because of the ‘mystique of aviation’ and the warm inner glow of the blissful ignorance arising from the belief that an engine before TBO is ‘safe’ and an engine past TBO is ‘not safe’.

The left engine on Chieftain VH-MZK was estimated to have had only 262 hours since its last overhaul and the right 1,395. Were those engines ‘safe’?

[Wally Mk2]

'creamy' like life itself NOTHING is guaranteed & as with all things mechanical there is & will always be the unknown so the rule makers do their best to have us safe & have to draw that line in the sand somewhere, it can't be open slather just because someone says but my engine is now 3000 hrs old 'cause the next engine could blow up at 220 hrs since new. Now whether that level of safety is adequate for any one individual is subjective & if you (you as in anyone) hops into a plane you take the risk, brand new engine or one with several hundred hrs above recommended O/Haul risk is still there.

It's all about choice at the end of the day I rarely fly in a SE plane full stop but that's my choice:-)


Wmk2

[onetrack]

An excellent article link, sinbinned - but I believe the recreational area of flying needs to have more publically-available reports of results of investigations into recreational flying accidents - and the particular reasons for those accidents disseminated more widely amongst the RA fraternity.

In my opinion, many recreational flyers do not impose upon themselves the necessary self-discipline and attention to detail that's required for aviation safety. This discipline is much more obvious in GA aviation, where a pilot is more likely to be part of a disciplined chain of associated operators.

I think the greatest concern centres around RA pilots who study, and pass exams, but who still fail to have a solid grasp of the many intricacies of basic aviation principles that are crucial to survival.

Whenever I read of an aviation accident that can be sheeted home to carelessness, a gung-ho attitude, and a simple lack of understanding of the behaviour and limits of their aircraft, I am forever reminded of that neat bumper sticker I sighted many years ago - "Dead Pilots Society - continuously practising random acts of good airmanship".

[Jack Ranga]

Wal-star, you and I both know there are dodges on either side. My first impression of dealing with LAME's was this complete prick who thought he had me by the nuts because he was the only one on the field and the plane I bought was out of annual/100 hourly. He was a fair chance of getting the work until I caught him out lieing.

We ALL have self interest, my profession does, so does yours. When you (not you Wal) get on here and bull**** about it, makes me laugh a bit :)

[Up-into-the-air]

The following, sinbinned, makes some interesting reading:

Whyalla VH-MZK | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=2228)

[Perspective]

Jack, I'm disheartened to hear about stories
Like yours, unfortunately not that uncommon, I
Acknowledge there are some operators out there like that
But don't tarnish all with that brush.

[RenegadeMan]

I came across this document from RA-Aus and thought it relevant to this thread.

Safety: Recent RA-Aus accident history

Very interesting reading sinbinned, thanks for posting

What the F$#& are you guys on. Honestly. Read your own posts again, and again, and have a think about what your suggesting/insinuating.
First we have someone suggesting TBO's are "Stupid", then lowering maintenance standards and see what happens,

Then we get someone suggesting TBO's are poorly thought through, Not arrived at through Generations of Aircraft Engine Building and maintenance experience gained by the Majors, including now Rotax,

and Finally, we have a suggestion that the only reason we have maintenance Regs is due to a Country, Nay, worldwide conspiracy by Maintainers, specifically qualified ones for Job Protection!!

let thy head bangeth!! Let the Professional Pilots out there do what they do well, day in/day out and for Christ's sake, let the maintainers do what they are trained to do and have a think about the fact that the manufacturer's have just a little bit more of an idea about how they want their machines maintained than you.

If there's one thing that demonstrates a narrow, closed down mind its the expression of incredulity and self righteousness when someone postures an 'us and them' attitude which makes broad and uneducated assumptions about the people on here, who they are, what their experience is.

You can bang your head all you like Perspective (and may it, through some bizarre warp in the space/time continuum, give you some!) but the fact is that the 2000 hr TBO regime is not a guaranteed solution to the many issues caused by forced maintenance at engine-hours expiration and at best is a compromise solution that often doesn't take into account numerous variables. With the engine monitoring technology we now have it would be far better to log and track usage and come up with an alternative set of rules/guidelines. Engine management computers that log running stats over the engine's life and can be interrogated have been in cars for decades; It's madness that we can't do something similar in aircraft. (Or alternatively we could just shutdown all conversation on this subject because people like you think we're all on something for even uttering such sacrilegious notions....)

I too have experienced engineers attempting to work me over and charge extraordinary fees that were unwarranted for things that didn't really need to be done. Like Wally Mk2 said, there are shifty people in both arenas, a/c owners/operators and engineers.

So before deciding to bang your head maybe you could articulate some intelligent arguments around some of these concepts and add to the debate rather than just castigating people.

[Flying Binghi]

...add to the debate...

Re engine TBO discussion, could i suggest a new thread as commentry under the heading "10 Dead in 42 days" is not a good look..:ok:

[Perspective]

Fair enough Renagademan,
ill try to be a bit more articulate.

[Jack Ranga]

Perspective, as I've said to Wal, tools on both side! The incident I spoke of wasn't isolated unfortunately. I used to ba tradie once, none of the trades I worked amongst had the captive & regulated market LAME's have.

[sinbinned]

Thanks up in the air, working my way through it.