PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - RPT's operating into the CTAF
View Single Post
Old 15th Nov 2008, 20:12
  #37 (permalink)  
james michael
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bloggs

I think we agree, particularly if I emphasise part of your comment:

I would be quite happy dealing with a professional voice on the radio that made the correct calls.

Plenty of reasons are put - CB bureaucrats, cockpit workload, NAS is a crock, etc.

The same can be said of speed cameras in Victoria - and that they create accidents due to speedo workload.

However, the law is the law. Professionals either abide by it or get it changed then abide by the new law.

From memory the high risk flight hours for an error of judgement are 300 then 3000, and I'd have to check the next level. But, what that says statistically is that "professional" is not a magic wand to safety.

This next is from the latest survey. Like all data it should be examined in context - but it is indicative. It's all about compliance with procedure - and I have thrown in several IFR examples. If I wanted to argue the (minor) VFR deviation one needs to recognise that the NAS literature had some variations from AIP and the VFR are following slightly different rules to the "professionals". But, I don't intend to argue that as I believe the data demonstrate both 'camps' are about equally conformant.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/q...COMPLIANCE.jpg

In the Airservices Armidale Aeronautical Study (NOT the one in the link) there were 4 ATSB reports over 2 years. Note the first two cases - professional or not? Three involved aircraft (Metro/Navajo, Saab 340/Super Kingair, and Dash 8 vs unknown [but known to the Dash 8]) – that is, in two of the four cases, professional crews, radio equipped, using radio – and still having a safety problem.

In summary, what I am proposing is that an elitist opinion of the professional fraternity that they are superior to the weekend warriors - is not conducive to solving the problems. It is only by recognising the causal factors and coming to mutual agreement to pursue education as needed and law change as needed that we achieve a safer outcome. The past 'industry fragmented' approach has has allowed the regulators to continue the shambles.

There has been a lot of work at industry association level, particularly as regards regionals operations, in seeking united solutions. It's not helped by a professional/private "schism".
Ends Sunday sermon
james michael is offline