View Full Version : Air safety record makes a crash landing
Wirraway
5th Dec 2004, 02:34
Sun "New Zealand Herald"
Air safety record makes a crash landing
05.12.04
New Zealand’s skies are apparently more dangerous than most.
A study by the Civil Aviation Authority has found New Zealand’s aircraft crash rate is worse than Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The study plots the number of accidents per 100,000 hours of flying time between 1990 and 2002.
New Zealand accident rates for smaller aircraft and helicopters were on average five times higher than in the US and four times higher than in the UK. Our accident rate is similar to Australia, but our crashes killed twice as many people.
CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said the findings would be presented to the aviation industry. "It’s a way of saying, c’mon guys we have to do better."
John Funnell, president of the Aviation Industry Association, said: "The industry is aware of its less than impressive record and we are trying to improve it."
- THE HERALD ON SUNDAY
==========================================
New Zealand accident rates for smaller aircraft and helicopters were on average five times higher than in the US
The report might mean something if it actually compares apples with apples.
From what I can understand some incidents/accidents that are recorded here in NZ are not recorded as such in the US, this skews the figures for a start.
I suspect that the relatively small number of flying hours here in NZ also skews the accident rate per 100,000 flying hours.
Probably the most accurate indicator of accident rates is what we pay for insurance and I know we don't pay 5 times as much as they do in the US.
All said and done there is always room for improvement.
Our accident rate is similar to Australia, but our crashes killed twice as many people. 27/09 is right, the figures need to be analysed carefully before any firm conclusions can be determined.
Obviously, NZ's more unforgiving terrain and weather must considered significant determinants for the higher fatality rate.
chicken6
6th Dec 2004, 00:09
QSK?
This was examine a couple of years ago at the RNZAC instructors conference at Ohakea. In a very good presentation on the last day, Brian Carruthers of ASL said that basically it's the pilots who need to change.
Our weather is NOT as bad as Europe (cloud), Australia (heat), or the USA (the works).
Our terrain is not generally as bad as any of those places either. The country is so big that most planes can fly to a coast from anywhere on one tank of gas. Most airports are below 1000' AMSL. The highest mountain we have wouldn't feature in Europe or the USA. We don't normally have extremes of heat in the popular flying places except the glider heaven in the Mackenzie country, or the Hawkes Bay/Wairarapa in summer westerlies.
But we do have pilots who take twelve attempts to pass PPL exams, up to seventeen I think was the record for a CPL exam, and the worst thing I reckon is people who ask for recounts on 65% to try and get 70%. You still don't know two thirds of the material! And the record low marks on most exams are so bad I'm not putting them in public view.
He said if we don't change the general quality of pilots ourselves, then the regulator (CAA, using ASL as the contractor) will start excluding people at the entry level. We could have three strikes you're out, never get another go. We could have an 80% pass mark. We could have oral exams for Law, or Air Tech, wouldn't that be just swell.
The biggest thing he said we need to change is our attitudes towards standards, because if we don't, they'll start doing it for us. Imagine if the trainers were able to focus on people who really wanted to put the effort in instead of "My dad sent me here to grow up" students. Imagine how nice it would be at every aeroclub and training school if instructors were required to be REGISTERED TEACHERS. It would certainly be very quiet. We have to change ourselves as a pilot body so it isn't taken out of our hands.
Chimbu chuckles
6th Dec 2004, 01:21
It has been stated on this forum more than once that people are passing CPLs today who would not have passed PPL in the early-mid 80s...and that's probably not too much of an exageration.
I have personal experience of a 1600hr Grade 3 Instructor/IFR/ATPL etc who should not have a licence to fly a kite...in fact two who were a tad ordinary...neither could pass a real IFR renewal not done by a mate.
Back in those days people did actually fail and get told 'sorry fella...pick a different hobby/career'...although even then it was getting rarer...these days schools will keeping taking someones money for as long as the individual keeps offering it...fair enough some will say but it really is a less than morally defensible position....particularly when, as has been pointed out...almost any idiot can pass given enough attempts...bet they couldn't do it twice on consecutive months with zero practice between attempts.
Too many schools, too many instructors competing for too few students...how to cull back the numbers....I really don't have an answer.
But standards?
A little easier to address however unpalatable for some. Either get rid of the ATO system or at least cull it back. Have a rotating roster of ATOs assigned to schools so they have no ability to pick 'easy' ones to test candidates...force a FOIs to do at least 30% of all flight tests. If an ATO/FOI has a 100% pass rate pull him in for a severe talking too and revue of his records.
Rewrite the training & testing syllabii and make them a lot harder...I have no gripe with making some exams oral...IFR/Air Leg for starters...Bi-annuals become Annuals and consist of a long searching oral covering rules/airspace/atc/limitations of the aircraft type being used for the test...and then a searching flight test covering EFATO, stalling, steep turns, enroute engine failure and glide approaches to touch down on a handy ALA. If any sequence is deemed lacking i.e. you'd have died/crashed, stalled out of the steep turn or lost/gained 100s of feet, glide approach didn't land within 200' of nominated touchdown point, speed etc outside tolerances...then a fail is issued and the student cannot retake the test for 1 month. No multiple attempts within one flight test allowed.
A few 'rough areas' on the oral need not be a fail but areas discussed & noted on file and tested again next year...or next month if the flight test failed...if flight test failed then the whole process deemed a fail and oral to be retaken as well as flight test.
Pilots employed by approved operators/airlines who have an approved in house checking and training organisation exempted the Annual...we already do the above every 6 mths.
Instructors tested every 6 mths, by the authority at no cost other than aircraft costs (born by the employer)...such test to make the ordinary annual look like a 'Love in'.
Any pilot unable/unwilling to make the effort is free to **** off and fly ultralights from a remote paddock.
Hmmmm...feel better now:E
Well frankly it has nothing to do with exams - since when did an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of an INS platform make you a better pilot - and everything to do with the CAA safety culture and it's implementation.
The CAA believe that safety is ultimately not their responsibility, and pass that buck on to the operators. You can see this philosophy at work in the recent crash at Christchurch airport, the subject of a just-concluded enquiry.
I was once offered a job with the NZ CAA as a flight ops inspector, and this philosophy was explained to me there. Basically, if an operator has up-to-date manuals, it has fulfilled all its obligations to the CAA, and is then responsible for its own conduct. I asked if, as an inspector, I could be rigourous in my examination of an operator, and told "no- just make sure their manuals are up to date".
It is a safety culture unique in the world, a product of the Swedavia Report which most aviation authorities see as seriously flawed.
The problem will not go away until the NZ CAA actively involve themselves in the promulgation of safe and effective testing.
It is no surprise to me that the NZ flight schools seem to have a record of passing on sub-standard pilots to the industry. As long as checking and training is profit-led, this will continue.
Chimbu chuckles
6th Dec 2004, 05:07
Who mentioned anything about INS?
Besides, as one of my first ever instructors said 25 years ago...breaking rules is more fun when you know what rules you're breaking...otherwise you're just plain ignorant:E
poteroo
6th Dec 2004, 07:50
Kiwi Pilots Not So Bad.........
All the Kiwis that I've ever had for low level training, or a BFR, have been as good, or maybe better, than the equivalent hour Oz pilot. Maybe export quality is higher - but I jest!
Tend to agree that skill standards have slipped, but this is an instructor issue, and is being handed down, generation to generation of pilots, via the instructors.
This gets us back into the arguement over whether the whole of our society isn't becoming so over-qualified - that there's nobody left to do the menial and unglamorous jobs which require skills rather than book learning.
Take a look at todays press - industry can't get tradesmen, but they could employ a 100 business degree graduates tomorrow.
For the PPL, I contend that we should be really emphasising skills, rather than slavishly following procedures,
ad nauseum
happy days,