What's happening at Ballina?

[Dick Smith]

If you remember, Sir Angus Houston refused to allow the fire fighters at Ballina to operate a Unicom radio, as they do in the USA. The last I heard is that the airport is going to employ retired air traffic controllers to provide the Unicom service.

I mention that everywhere else in the world I know of, this service is provided completely free of charge from someone who just happens to be at the airport.

I have phoned the airport management and left messages but can’t get a return phone call. Can anyone advise what’s happening? Are we to have a Unicom and if it’s to be a paid for service with retired air traffic controllers, what will the cost be per year? I would imagine that will be added on to the landing fees for the airport.

This of course will result in even less people flying to Ballina.

[Lookleft]

Keep an eye on the ATSB website Dick and you will see that a lot has been happening in Ballina!

[Dick Smith]

Are you suggesting there have been safety incidents? Hope not.

[Checkboard]

fewer people ;)

[Dick Smith]

Look left. Can't see anything on the ATSB site. Any hints?

[Lookleft]

Try this Investigation: AO-2016-003 - Traffic management event involving Airbus A320, VH-VQS and Beech Aircraft Corporation, VH-EWL at Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport, NSW on 14 January 2016 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-003/)

[Capn Bloggs]

She'll be right, eh Dick?
If those three aircraft were provided with
this service is provided completely free of charge from someone who just happens to be at the airport.

there would have been no problem! They all would have had frequency confirmation so they would have known about each other! Oh, hang on, they did already. They would all have had a service! Oh, hang on, was the person "who just happened to be at the airport" providing a traffic service? I hope not, based on the outcome. Let's introduce E airspace! Oh, hang on, was one of them VFR? Dang! VFR "don't exist" in Class E.

If you're so paranoid about Ballina, either put in a trained service provider like a CAGRO (shock horror... retired ATCs), or put in a tower!!

:D :D :ok: :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Must agree. Can't possibly utilise one of the AsA employed Firies to provide a Unicom service like they do all over North America .

We in Australia know so much more. Blogs is correct An expensive tower or ATC operated A/G is the only way to go.

Thanks heavens for Bloggs - maximise cost - one of the reasons RFAC clubs have dropped from over 100 to less than 50. Mum would have been shocked.

[Capn Bloggs]

So Dick, let's see, how would the fireys have prevented the incident that Lookleft has pointed you to?

Blogs is correct An expensive tower or ATC operated A/G is the only way to go.

Thanks heavens for Bloggs - maximise cost - one of the reasons RFAC clubs have dropped from over 100 to less than 50. Mum would have been shocked.
That's pretty disgusting, Dick. Especially since you attempted but failed, to destroy the RFACA in the 80s. She achieved far more for her cause, with dignity and with the respect of the highest of politicians, than you ever will. Disgraceful.

[CaptainMidnight]

From my reading of the ATSB summary, neither a UNICOM or CAGRS would have had any bearing on the situation except add to the frequency use.

[Lead Balloon]

But lucky there was an RFFS to hose fire retardant over the bodies, if there'd been a mid-air.

[LeadSled]

She achieved far more for her cause, with dignity and with the respect of the highest of politicians, than you ever will. Disgraceful. Bloggs,
Wonderful and loyal sentiment, but a long way from the facts.
The RFAC was, and to a large degree still is, a wet blanket on any progress.
The RFAC opposed the rules changes in 1998, that gave us all the growth in Recreational Aviation.
The RFAC opposed every cost saving measure Dick proposed, including a 13.8 cents per litre levy, imposed on every avgas user, to support Secondary towers, when Jet A users paid Nil/Zero/Zilch to use the same airfields. RNAC paid 13.8 cents per litre to subsidize RACNSW.
The RFAC opposed every simplification of rules proposed by Dick, and opposed US style rules.
The RFAC largely destroyed itself, that is why so many aero clubs quit RFAC and affiliated with the AOPA of the day.
I have (as you well know) been around for a long time, and not one single thing comes to mind, that the RFAC has done, to arrest the CASA directed demise of GA.
Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I would imagine that will be added on to the landing fees for the airport.

Which is how user pays works, is it not?

[2b2]

Can't possibly utilise one of the AsA employed Firies to provide a Unicom service like they do all over North America .


When this came up before someone asked for a list of the places this happens. I may have missed the answer but I think Steamboat Springs or somewhere like that was the only place mentioned.

Does anyone have some other examples where the firies do this (preferably available on LiveATC or a similar feed)?

[Dick Smith]

I don't have a list because in the USA every airport with RPT traffic has a Unicom on a no cost basis. Always someone already at the airport like the FBO operator or refueler.

[Capn Bloggs]

Bloggs,
Wonderful and loyal sentiment, but a long way from the facts.

Arr, good to see B2 is back. :rolleyes:

For your edcuation, Sled, it's RFACA.

Dick, answer the question, or has the cat got your tongue...

So Dick, let's see, how would the fireys have prevented the incident that Lookleft has pointed you to?

[CaptainMidnight]

When this came up before someone asked for a list of the places this happens. I may have missed the answer but I think Steamboat Springs or somewhere like that was the only place mentioned.My recollection is that when this came up earlier (or it may have been at a RAPAC), it was said that when CASA queried the FAA re the nature of the traffic information being provided by U.S. UNICOMs, the FAA expressed interest in exactly which stations were doing so.

Which suggested they weren't supposed to be providing traffic information, or that the nature of the information being provided was only supposed to be of a very general nature, and not directed and specific to the extent of that provided by the Australian CAGRS, which is based on specific traffic criteria.

[Dick Smith]

Sounds like complete rubbish. The FAA has no problems with any info being given by a Unicom operator. Why not bring up the " insurance problems" furphy as well !

[Capn Bloggs]

From my reading of the ATSB summary, neither a UNICOM or CAGRS would have had any bearing on the situation except add to the frequency use.
Actually, I think a CAGRO (or AFIS as is at YPPD) would have had a good chance of preventing it. With their aviation knowledge and understanding of keeping aeroplanes apart, the unfolding conflict would quite possibly have been spotted and advised to the crews.

Certainly, Dick's idea that a firey or baggage-chucker would or could have helped in that situation is simply nonsensical codswallop.

Hey LeedSleed, you're quiet on this incident. What's your solution?

[Lead Balloon]

My solution is certainly not wasting millions on an RFFS.

[LeadSled]

Hey LeedSleed, you're quiet on this incident. What's your solution?

Bloggs,
My dear chap, a major part of the solution would be a little more thought given to operations by those involved. In fact, and based also on personal experience, I would describe this a quite predictable incident of a "cultural" problem.
Part of the "fly by mouth" syndrome, and "do-it-yourself" ATC in G.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Slead, yes yes yes bla bla bla we've heard all that before but what's your solution? Less talking and more lOOking out? Good one.

and "do-it-yourself" ATC in G.
Better the fireys give you "ATC" then... or quit your/Dick's whingeing and put in a tower.

[CaptainMidnight]

Actually, I think a CAGRO (or AFIS as is at YPPD) would have had a good chance of preventing it. With their aviation knowledge and understanding of keeping aeroplanes apart, the unfolding conflict would quite possibly have been spotted and advised to the crews.
I agree a CAGRS is a far better service than UNICOM.

My point was that based on my reading of the limited summary, the three aircraft were all aware of each other by mutual radio contact, so the same situation could have developed i.e. VH-VQS clarified their plan for maintaining altitude separation with the crew of one of the arriving aircraft.which delayed the departure of VH-VQS and resulted in the second arriving aircraft being closer to VH-VQS than anticipated as it commenced take-off.even if the three aircraft had first been given traffic information by a CAGRO instead of mutual radio contact.

But maybe I'm interpreting the summary incorrectly, or more detail about what was actually said and when will come out.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Actually, I think a CAGRO (or AFIS as is at YPPD) would have had a good chance of preventing it. With their aviation knowledge and understanding of keeping aeroplanes apart, the unfolding conflict would quite possibly have been spotted and advised to the crews.

The CAGRO's job is to identify the traffic, and pass to each aircraft. Sum total of involvement. After that, how it is dealt with is up to the pilots. These guys found out about each other the current way, and then f#@ked it up. If a CAGRO, or even a Unicom, was the initial advisor, these guys would still have f#@ked it up. How you find out about the traffic is one thing, what you do about it is another.

If you want to take the pilots out of it, then put a TWR in and have Air Traffic CONTROL.

[Capn Bloggs]

The CAGRO's job is to identify the traffic, and pass to each aircraft. Sum total of involvement. After that, how it is dealt with is up to the pilots.
Of course. However, the quality of the information positively affects the outcome. My experience with CAGROs and AFISs is that the picture you build form that info would be far better than just having a firey (or Dick's mate "who happened to be on the airport") say "there's so and so on freq". For example, based on the admittedly scant info from the occurrence details so far, alarm bells would probably have been ringing in the CAGRO's office when the JQ was only talking to the first aircraft, as the other got closer and closer. He/she would have piped up with a traffic statement. That sort of involvement just would not happen with a "Dick Smith" Unicom.

My argument has ifs and buts? Yes, but CASA thinks that a proper, trained and qualified radio service (not necessarily one provided by that over-charging rip-off outfit AsA with it's bonus-driven managers ;)) is necessary to bridge the gap between Beepback and Tower. Joe Bloggs on the fuel truck running the Unicom doesn't cut the mustard.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Ah yes, but where was CASA (or its predecessors) when our mate got rid of the system that CASA thinks is such a good idea now. Our mate is happy because he thinks he will get what he had before, but for free. He can't seem to grasp that aerodrome operators run a commercial operation now, and somebody has to pay for these professional services.
As someone who has provided AFIS I doubt that the CAGRO would have got any more involved after passing the initial traffic. I often advised several aircraft that they were mutual traffic in the circuit, and sometimes never heard them speak to each other. Didn't mean I continually jumped in prompting them to speak up and sort it out. If they acknowledged the traffic and then didn't speak again, so be it.
Actually I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for more CAGRO's to appear. CASA actually thinks they are dead in the water. A project to amend the MOS to open up the qualifications and training was cancelled by CASA in 2011 because of the almost zero interest and take up of the service by industry.

[Dick Smith]

Of course there is almost zero interest from industry.. It's because there is going to be an extra cost .

In other countries the Unicom service is provided by existing people at the airport at zero cost.

I have not claimed this incident had anything to do with a lack of a CAGRO.

I support the overseas proven no cost Unicom system for the maximum number of airports possible. What's wrong for copying the best.

[no_one]

Dick,

I admit that my flying experience in the USA is limited to only a few hundred hours but it was bumbling around the smaller airports in a little Cessna. I can only recall 1 time that a unicom passed me traffic information. Mostly they gave parking directions after landing or were asking if I needed fuel and occasionally surface winds.

Where I see the biggest issues for Australia is that the existing unicom operators are not able to pass weather information because of CAR 120.

No_one

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Dick, we've been on this merry-go-round before. Of course there is no interest in CAGRO, because it is basically the old FS but localised and provided and paid for by the relevant aerodrome operator, who, it is obvious, does not want to. Also obviously, any costs associated with a CAGRO incurred by an aerodrome operator would have been recovered from its users, who, in the main, don't want to pay for it.

In other countries the Unicom service is provided by existing people at the airport at zero cost.

In Australia, the Unicom service can already be provided by someone at the airport, so why isn't it? Surely it's free? Well, of course it's not free, someone is paying those "existing people" to be at the airport, and they obviously don't see any value in having that person provide a service to all and sundry that is not directly related to their business.

[Mr Approach]

Ballina Council owners of the airport have a tender on their web page for a CA/GRS service provider.
<eTENDERING:: Desktop (http://tenders.ballina.nsw.gov.au/eTendering) ViewTender.aspx?tenderId=Q8LbSpRmDGXgFCRF5XLg7g%3d%3d>

Also a Unicom operator can pass weather information if he/she has a CAR120 approval from CASA.

[thorn bird]

Can anyone actually recall the RFFS actually putting out an aircraft fire??

Leadie, am I right in stating that ICAO only mandates RFFS for international airports, not domestic.

Sorry, forgot, we only align with ICAO when it suits us.

[LeadSled]

Thorn Bird,
Re. ICAO, correct on both counts, we only align with ICAO when it suits CASA/ASA and their unions, and then it is a very "Australian" version of compliance.
Just to remind everybody, there has never been a survivable aircraft accident on an Australian airport, international or otherwise, where the presence of on-airport ARFFS made any difference to the outcome for fatalities or injuries.
ARFFS is a classic example of economic waste.
Tootle pip!!

[mcgrath50]

there has never been a survivable aircraft accident on an Australian airport, international or otherwise, where the presence of on-airport ARFFS made any difference to the outcome for fatalities or injuries.
ARFFS is a classic example of economic waste.

And the moment a 737 goes off the end of the runway at say Broome, that only otherwise has a volunteer fire brigade, we will all be on here saying how negligent the government is in not providing adequate fire cover.

[Lead Balloon]

So what is likely to happen to the 737 that goes off the end of the runway at Broome, and what would the RFFS at Broome do about it?

[mcgrath50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

Sure, was RFFS essential here? Probably not. But I hope you defend the decision to scale back RFFS resources when the first burnt bodies are shown on the news. :ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

So what is likely to happen to the 737 that goes off the end of the runway at Broome, and what would the RFFS at Broome do about it? The ARFF would be on scene far quicker than the local FS.

At least 10-15 minutes quicker from experience, by the time volunteers are paged, all attend the fire station and suit up then the tenders proceed to the airport.

[Lead Balloon]

The ARFF would be on scene far quicker than the local FS.

At least 10-15 minutes quicker from experience, by the time volunteers are paged, all attend the fire station and suit up then the tenders proceed to the airport.And where is that scene likely to be if a 737 went off the end of the runway at Broome?

McG: you identify the issue, concisely. The decision is made on the basis of politics and perception, not real-world risks and real-world risk mitigation.

[wishiwasupthere]

Of all the ludicrous things you read on PPRUNE, removing permanent firefighters from major airports because they're expensive nearly takes the cake.

[Lead Balloon]

I agree.

And I think it's ludicrous that there aren't skin specialists and surgeons in clinics on permanent standby at those airports during the same hours as the RFFS. There can be no objection on the grounds of expense.

If someone with burns is rescued by RFFS at an airport and they die on the way to an off-airport hospital, the government will obviously have been negligent.

[Slippery_Pete]

Okay. That's enough Dick Smith.

I used to defend you. I used to take each of your Pprune posts on their merit and try to look at them objectively.

Now, I'm just sick of it.

You're clogging up Pprune with issues which:
1. Have been done to death already
2. Strangely enough always seem to affect the corridor of airspace you fly along or an aircraft you own
3. Don't represent what most professional pilots in Australia would vote are the most important economical or safety issues to the industry at the moment.

It's not a personal attack. I admire you greatly, particularly your ability to stump up cash for conservation.

But enough is enough. Take a deep breath, have a break from Pprune for six months.

That way, you're much more likely to find people wanting to work with you.

If you keep flogging a dead horse (very loudly) over and over, you're doing your own objectives a massive disservice.

[wishiwasupthere]

I'm guessing you're a home owner, and every year you spend not a small amount of money insuring your house in the statistically unlikely yet still possible chance that something might destroy your house.

I don't really see a service like ARFF any differently. It's an insurance policy against an unlikely yet possible event. I'd much prefer the firies on the field to respond in minutes then waiting 10-15 minutes for the local brigade to respond.

[Lead Balloon]

I should no longer be astonished at the intuition that is dressed up as objectively driven risk and safety decisions in Australia.

Nobody has yet to explain where the likely "scene" of an accident arising from a "737 running off the end of the runway at Broome" is likely to be, at which "scene" the RFFS is going to be providing useful assistance. I note that I didn't raise that as an example: someone else did. (I have a vision of shiny fire tenders with flashing lights, surrounded by fit firies wringing their hands while watching a 737 floating or bogged in water or sand that's inaccessible by fire tender. As I keep saying, being "in the vicinity" isn't the same as being "at".)

Based on the "insurance" argument, wishiwasupthere, we should have skin specialists and surgeons in clinics on permanent standby at those airports during the same hours as the RFFS, to insure against someone dying of burns or injuries on the way to an off-airport hospital. Why aren't they there?

Sooner or later, someone has to state the objective truth: Because the risk isn't sufficient to justify the cost.

It's why cockpit doors weren't moved rearwards to deal with the risk of rogue aircrew, in the wake of the GermanWings tragedy. The "premium" isn't justified by the risk mitigated.

The truth about RFFS has been posted on various related threads already. At least that's refreshingly frank. It's about perception and politics, rather than objective risk mitigation of objective risks. Please don't be surprised or upset when some of us point this out.

[wishiwasupthere]

Ok mate. So every single country in the world has it wrong, and you know better. Why bother. :ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

"Every single country in the world" would have an RFFS at an aerodrome like Ballina? And there was me feeling guilty for the occasional resort to hyperbole. :=

[gerry111]

I suspect that the continuing money spent on the RFFS at Ballina, would be much better spent putting up a very tall mobile phone tower in the vicinity of Lake Eyre.

So that Marree and William Creek would be covered and airmen and motorists in trouble would have mobile coverage.

I reckon that Trevor Wright may also agree with me..

That may pass LB's "..objective risk mitigation of objective risks." test.

[Awol57]

Yair. Must agree. Can't possibly utilise one of the AsA employed Firies to provide a Unicom service like they do all over North America .

We in Australia know so much more. Blogs is correct An expensive tower or ATC operated A/G is the only way to go.

Thanks heavens for Bloggs - maximise cost - one of the reasons RFAC clubs have dropped from over 100 to less than 50. Mum would have been shocked.

"Every single country in the world" would have an RFFS at an aerodrome like Ballina? And there was me feeling guilty for the occasional resort to hyperbole.

I am confused now given Dick wants the ARFF to do radio calls as per the US arrangement but the US doesn't have ARFF at aerodromes like Ballina?

[Lead Balloon]

I think Dick's point is that if there is going to be such a misallocation of finite safety resources, some of those resources should at least be utilised to trying to mitigate some of the known, more substantial risks in the vicinity of aerodromes in G, rather than merely standing by to respond to accidents after they happen.

As a matter of interest, will the RFFS be monitoring the CTAF to hear and respond to the crew of an inbound jet that is concerned about a potential undercarriage collapse due to system warnings? You know: An accident that could actually happen at the aerodrome.

[Lookleft]

As a matter of interest, will the RFFS be monitoring the CTAF to hear and respond to the crew of an inbound jet that is concerned about a potential undercarriage collapse due to system warnings? You know: An accident that could actually happen at the aerodrome.

Not going to happen with CTA and a proper runway 30 miles north and BN not far beyond that. The only reason an RPT aircraft would land at BNA is as a last resort with an uncontained fire or smoke in the flight deck. I do agree though that putting an RFF in ahead of ATC is a complete waste of money. I forget the magic number AsA used to justify it, I think it was around 200,000 pax a year. If that number deserves a fire station then they deserve a control tower.

[Awol57]

They do monitor the frequency of either the CTAF or Tower and SMC at towered airports.

Also the magic number is a CASA requirement not an ASA one.

[Lead Balloon]

[T]he magic number is a CASA requirement not an ASA one.Indeed.

And how does CASA justify the number? Based on an ICAO standard? The decision whether to implement that standard rather than add another difference to the 80 or so pages of existing filed differences would, of course, be based purely on safety grounds and uninfluenced by political and other sectional interests.

So the firies, when on duty at Ballina, monitor the CTAF so as to be able to know, for example, that a jet is inbound conducting an urgent landing in circumstances that may require RFFS assistance. Would the firies, having heard a call like that, transmit anything back to the inbound jet?

[LeadSled]

Also the magic number is a CASA requirement not an ASA one. Folks,
Many moons ago, I was actually at the Infrastructure meeting in Canberra, when the two CASA members of the same unions as most of the ASA ARFFS employees did the "CASA" presentation about imposing (no nonsense with a safety case, cost/benefit justification or other time wasting) the CASA interpretation of the ICAO requirement.
It was NOT complying with ICAO, because ICAO does not require ARFFS at other than international airports, but "ICAO" was the justification for what was a a "union initiative".
Bit like the CAGRO "rules", where only ex-ATC/FA could qualify, dreamed up to create jobs for retired ATC and FS persons --- and on the inside, there was nothing coy about how it was done, which included opposition to UNICOM because "it's Dick's idea".
Not because UNICOM didn't work.
Such is the way "air safety" is "managed" in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Those of us with a long enough memory know that the rule change that resulted in weather observers in AU not including pilots automatically as approved observers (unlike most of the rest of the world) was another union "initiative".
All in the interests of air safety, you understand.

[Awol57]

So the firies, when on duty at Ballina, monitor the CTAF so as to be able to know, for example, that a jet is inbound conducting an urgent landing in circumstances that may require RFFS assistance. Would the firies, having heard a call like that, transmit anything back to the inbound jet?

No idea what their procedures are under that circumstance, but I would assume they would to at least advise the crew they were going to turn out.

[Lead Balloon]

I would have thought that if they are monitoring the CTAF at Ballina, and capable of transmitting on the CTAF at Ballina ....

[Awol57]

I had a feeling you were headed that way.

There is a difference between monitoring a radio for a situation requiring a turn out versus writing down all the pertinent calls required for traffic. I don't know what other tasks they may be doing in the FCC so perhaps with training sure, no issues. But I am not ARFF so can only speculate based off my observations. :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

Nor me. Just thinking aloud. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Bit like the CAGRO "rules", where only ex-ATC/FA could qualify, dreamed up to create jobs for retired ATC and FS persons
Yep, CASA dreamt up a plan to provide jobs for retired ATCOs... at Ayers Rock. Good one.

The reality was that AYQ needed a bit more than a free-for-all but not a Tower. A CAGRO/AFIS (jeez, look out, they have those in America and Canada too, you know!!) service provided a suitable level of safety.

Those of you who think that, particularly these days, any semblance of a Unicom service could be safely provided by "anybody who is on the airport" are simply dreaming, and in fact quite dangerous if sprouting the concept to the great unwashed.

[red_dirt]

Ok I've come in half way through a conversation but ill see how I go,

[QUOTE]So the firies, when on duty at Ballina, monitor the CTAF so as to be able to know, for example, that a jet is inbound conducting an urgent landing in circumstances that may require RFFS assistance. Would the firies, having heard a call like that, transmit anything back to the inbound jet?/QUOTE]

Considering its a Level 1 aerodrome, its required to have certain facilities in it one of which is a "watch room" operator that monitors and occurrence records, radio traffic, crash alarms, general phone calls.

[QUOTE]Can anyone actually recall the RFFS actually putting out an aircraft fire??/QUOTE]

Approximately 10% of all calls attended by ASA are "aircraft related"(hot brakes, dodgy panel light etc). There have been some significant incidents internationally where the ARFFA service have been used in anger. Some very recently, BA flight caught fire on the runway, Airbus Caught fire in the runway, Air Asia Pacific 727 just the other day, and the great mayday at Heathrow with the double engine failure years back. The risk is there.

[QUOTE]So what is likely to happen to the 737 that goes off the end of the runway at Broome, and what would the RFFS at Broome do about it?/QUOTE]

Plenty actually

[QUOTE]If someone with burns is rescued by RFFS at an airport and they die on the way to an off-airport hospital, the government will obviously have been negligent./QUOTE]

Ummm you sure? triage.....good, bad, pretty bad, de..? Save the saveable?

CASA have just completed (2 weeks ago i think) an extensive study on the MOS139H and are changing the a lot of the content and requirements. The requirement for an ARFF service is 350k pax movements in a 12 month period OR where an international flight is coming in, e.g. Norfolk Island. CASA are looking at dropping the pax threshold and introducing a more risk assessment approach which is exactly what should happen. Eg, Onslow airport in WA, gets 5-6 full, F100 movements a day and there is not a fire truck in site. In short, the FIFO market has changed the game.

Without going through every post, some people here need to learn to understand how a risk assessment works... what the likelihood of an incident these days? nah it may happen..... but if it does FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK its going to be pretty bad. The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all and whoever thinks that needs their head read. Its based purely on risk. If people think its all political and ARFF stations are removed for being a waste of money and just relying on an urban pumper from the state fire services to come help you....? it will only happen once.

[Lead Balloon]

[I]ts required to have certain facilities in it one of which is a "watch room" operator that monitors and occurrence records, radio traffic, crash alarms, general phone calls.Someone with that level of expertise seems to be quite expert.The risk is there.We know "the risk" is there. There are lots of other risks to operating in the vicinity of Ballina, which means an RFFS is a misallocation of finite risk mitigation resources. So what is likely to happen to the 737 that goes off the end of the runway at Broome, and what would the RFFS at Broome do about it?Plenty actuallyLike what? I'm guessing your response will conveniently assume the aircraft will be located where the fire tenders can be driven and firies can access on foot?Ummm you sure? triage.....good, bad, pretty bad, de..? Save the saveable?These folks are sounding more expert by the minute. Expert enough to run a CAGRO at Ballina.CASA have just completed (2 weeks ago i think) an extensive study ...You lost me at "CASA". it may happen..... but if it does FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK its going to be pretty bad.Really. So if there's an accident in which people are burning, it's going to be pretty bad? I'll write that down.

And if a jet and a lightie collide 5nms away, they're all dead.The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all and whoever thinks that needs their head read.All cost benefit decisions are influenced by politics.Its based purely on risk.That is patently untrue. If you believe that, you need your head read.

It's about cost as well. That's why there isn't a fully equipped and staffed burns unit at the all the airports that have an RFFS.If people think its all political and ARFF stations are removed for being a waste of money and just relying on an urban pumper from the state fire services to come help you....? it will only happen once.Thus demonstrating the decision is influenced by politics. QED.

Some of us take the quaint view that the allocation of finite resources to mitigate safety risks should be on the basis of the objective and comparative levels of those risks. There are far greater risks to jets operating into an aerodrome like Ballina than those that will be mitigated by an RFFS, and those greater risks could be mitigated at far less than the cost of an RFFS.

Dick has the crazy idea that maybe a practicable way to mitigate the far greater risks to jets operating into Ballina is to utilise the resources of the RFFS that is there anyway and, apparently, has the expertise to monitor and transmit on a radio, as well as make life and death triage decisions. Some of us consider this to be a perfectly obvious and reasonable option to consider.

And we know why it's "impossible".

[LeadSled]

Red Dirt,
With the very greatest of respect, what you say is far removed from the real world.
Just re-read my last post, I was there, personally, when the present nonsense was rammed through ---- were you?? Any semblance of risk analysis was very obvious by its total absence.
As has been demonstrated, time and again, CASA is incapable of rational risk analysis, and as Lead Balloon has put it so eloquently, CASA have no idea about distribution of finite resources to produce the best safety outcome for the available $$$.
As for union influenced rule making, it is all too pervasive in CASA. Again, if you want to believe otherwise, like believing in a flat earth, that is your right, but you're wrong.

Yep, CASA dreamt up a plan to provide jobs for retired ATCOs... at Ayers Rock. Good one.

Bloggs,
Same answer for you, believe what you want, by I was there, on the spot, at the time, were you?? Of course you were not, but never confuse yourself with facts, when your prejudices are made up!!

Tootle pip!!

[red_dirt]

Dick has the crazy idea that maybe a practicable way to mitigate the far greater risks to jets operating into Ballina is to utilise the resources of the RFFS that is there anyway and, apparently, has the expertise to monitor and transmit on a radio, as well as make life and death triage decisions. Some of us consider this to be a perfectly obvious and reasonable option to consider.

Why is this a bad idea.... the watch room operator already monitors the radio anyway...

You lost me at "CASA"

Yup good answer....

These folks are sounding more expert by the minute

Another fiiiine answer and well written

Like what? I'm guessing your response will conveniently assume the aircraft will be located where the fire tenders can be driven and firies can access on foot?

No but please feel free to continue to try and put words in my mouth

Really. So if there's an accident in which people are burning, it's going to be pretty bad? I'll write that down

Please do because if there are people with major burns in a car accident the result is usually the same innit. Im sure the ARFF guys responding will have various first aid / resus qualifications and capable of keeping the saveable people alive

All cost benefit decisions are influenced by politics.

Got physical evidence of that? Ill have to right that down because last time i looked, we pay the government fees and taxes for a reason so its not a crime.

We know "the risk" is there. There are lots of other risks to operating in the vicinity of Ballina, which means an RFFS is a misallocation of finite risk mitigation resources.

Risks are everywhere but its a matter of what risks can we mitigate with the resources available to us. Having an ARFF member monitoring a radio does not pose any risk, doesn't increase any risk and does not increase the likelihood of anything, they are all licensed to talk on the radios and above all, he's doing it now anyway... its a cost affective way to mitigate a risk

That is patently untrue. If you believe that, you need your head read.

No I don't. I've just been doing this job for 30 years and have a very good understand of how risk assessments are conducted and what is an acceptable level of risk..

Thus demonstrating the decision is influenced by politics. QED.

I actually have no idea what that last comment means.... if you think that an standard urban pumper can respond to and deal with an aircraft incident the same way an ARFF appliance can then you need to read up on the limitations on domestic fire trucks... Eg, you can't pump and roll so you can modulate around the aircraft and isolate the fuselage and protect the exit points because you need to, get out, stop the pump, get back in, reposition, get out start the pump. ARFF trucks are built to pump and roll and project large volumes of water from up to 90m away will still driving.

As for union influenced rule making, it is all too pervasive in CASA

Im sorry Im lost i never mentioned a union influenced decision. Anyway, the union don't make the rules.... they are to protect workplace conditions and entitlements nothing more.

CASA is incapable of rational risk analysis

100% with you but with the following caveat, The current ARFF dude in casa is pretty new to the job and was spearheading the review. He's not CASA old school he's a ex-firefighter so i would assume he would have a sound level of knowledge

Gentlemen, you need to understand that there is no right or wrong answer in assessing risk because risk assessments are SUBJECTIVE so 4 people conduct a risk assessment will probably achieve 4 different results.

[Dick Smith]

If he is an ex fire fighter wouldn't he want to ensure maximum resources are allocated to prevent fatalities from fires in planes at airports?

Could this not mis allocate finite safety resources?

[LeadSled]

------ he's a ex-firefighterRed Dirt,
I rest my case, so were the ones who rammed through the present "rules".

He or she is no more likely than a pilot to be the person who is capable of the best risk analysis.

Indeed, as we continually see, pilots are often the very worst at assessing operational risk, continually demonstrating ( at a personal and organizational level) that they cannot separate real risk from perceived risk, or straight out prejudice, for that matter.

I have sat in a meeting where the representative of one of the two major pilot unions demanded rules changes to address "perceived" risk, even having admitted that it was perceived risk and could not be demonstrated (even a single case, let alone a systemic risk) as an actual risk.

By and large, CASA simply do NOT carry out credible and competent risk analysis, much less credible and competent cost/benefit justification. Although many do not accept it, the "safety" $$$ is finite, and our continual failure to use proper cost/benefit positive risk analysis ensures a less than "best" air safety outcome, it simply cannot be any other outcome.

Dick has take a lot of stick over the years for "Affordable Safety", but what we see in Australia is more akin to "Unaffordable Safety" , and it shows in the shrinking GA sector, and the lousy comparative air safety outcomes, versus the US.

Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

So red dirt

The person in CASA doing a review of ARFFS is an ARFF? I'm reminded of that saying about problems, hammers and nails.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by some of your responses, so I'll deal with the ones that I'm most confused about, one at a time.

In one of your earlier posts you said:The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all.You then went on to say:If people think its all political and ARFF stations are removed for being a waste of money and just relying on an urban pumper from the state fire services to come help you....? it will only happen once.I interpreted your statement that "it will only happen once" to mean that after that one event, presumably involving an aircraft fire and charred bodies, the outcome would be to reinstate (or instal) and ARFFS.

If that's what you are suggesting, that outcome would not be a consequence of a proper risk analysis or allocation of finite resources to mitigating those risks. It would be a knee-jerk reaction fuelled by cognitive bias. In short, an outcome driven by politics.

Do you agree or disagree?

[red_dirt]

Dick,

Im not in the guys head but based on what I've head and read about him he wants to see a reform on how fire resources are distributed generally so things are going to change. When? well who knows at this stage,the government has never been quick in changing things.

Looking at this from a tactical level i get what you are all saying but from a strategic level what the report highlights is perfectly clear. Just because he an ex firefighter doesn't mean he is going to flood the country with shiny red/green trucks and it also doesn't mean he will close them all down... what it means is that we do not have a crusty old firefighter from back in the day with no concept of modern fire suppression techniques / strategies, we have a person who is up to date with the modern times taking a more objective or strategic look at the current system. My guess is some will go and some new stations will pop up.

Lead Balloon, yeah its a bit ambiguous i admit, my comment The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all. is based on a fact of law. Like it or hate it its the law. I hate the fact that i can't run someone over who i don't like but its the law

Removing a airport fire station would be puelly based on the risk as perceived by the person delegated to determine the risk but under current legislation is based on a fact of law

Red Dirt,
I rest my case, so were the ones who rammed through the present "rules"

Leadsled, yes i get that but they are the crusty old firefighters i referred to above. No concepts of the strategic or wholistic view on it and unfortunately those we the people who made the decision at the time.

By and large, CASA simply do NOT carry out credible and competent risk analysis,

yeah yeah yeah so you've said and trust me I'm no CASA advocate, but I'm sure there are things that they have implemented over the years which we all scoff at, but has made Australia one of or the safety aviation industry internationally.

I fully understand the affordable or acceptable safety and i agree with the concept and what a lot of people say, but we (the pilots) are a precious buns of people and can't have it both was

[Lead Balloon]

So as a pilot with risk assessment experience, red, what do you reckon to be the more probable (least remote) risk:

1. You and all your pax burning to death in your jet on the runway at a non-towered airport without an ARFFS.

2. You and all your pax dying as a consequence of a mid air in the vicinity of a non-towered airport with an ARFFS.

[red_dirt]

Option 1 Based on historical data, is the more likely to happen out of those unlikely (but possible) scenarios

How many mid air accidents are there in the world each year.......... how many on or near airport fires are there each year

Sorry I edited but under the new proposed system, in my opinion, you'll see more stations getting built than getting closed because these little FIFO airports are pushing the friendship bit.

[Lead Balloon]

In that case, we'll have to disagree on that point.

(It would be great if all those ARFFS could be CAGROS too.)

[red_dirt]

yeah that i agree on and i can't see why they can't do that too. It would be brilliant and an affordable level of safety

[Lead Balloon]

As a matter of interest, how many data points in your historical data were accidents/incidents at aerodromes surrounded by airspace equivalent to Australia's Class G?

[red_dirt]

Quite a few but regarding the exact numbers and percentages i don't have that information on my Mac

(yes i know... a mac)

[Lead Balloon]

When you get to a real computer, it would be great to get some details of the those accidents/incidents. :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Leadie,

Re "And where is that scene likely to be if a 737 went off the end of the runway at Broome?"

Which end do you wish to nominate?

Off the Western end towards Cable Beach, he would be ploughing thru a wire fence, then about 216 meters or so of Broome Savannah, (Lightly wooded trees n' grass), then into / out of the drainage ditches either side across Gubinge Road - if he made it that far - then another 318 meters or so of highly senstitive indigenous cultural land until the sandhills would finally bring the 'heaving beast' to a halt, presumeably in 'many pieces'....

Orf the other end would be 'quicker'...full on into the raised earth noise / jet blast mound at the 'Town End', and if the wreckage climbed that, then across the main road into town, and maybe into the tidal mangroves / swamp. Around 300m, probably coming to rest before getting into the 'Paspaley Plaza' but not guaranteed to do so....

Either way...OUCH!!

What would / could 'ANY' emergency services do?
Probably not a great deal, except for the airport appliances.
Pick up any survivors and not too much else, and put out the fires caused by the spilling fuel....

Ex BME CAGRO....
:cool:

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks EFG - It's great to actually engage in the gory details of what may actually happen in fact.

And I left the "what end" question open because the objectively obvious answer is: either. I anticipate that the firies would have a plan for both.

A 737 fuselage minus wings and undercarriage legs will slide a long way. The physicists can do the calcs on the various speeds at which the aircraft could go "off the end".

Depending on the speed it runs off, at the western end the aircraft is likely to end up in a place inaccessible by fire tenders. At the eastern end the aircraft is likely to end up in the Main Street. The firies would probably be able to do much more, once they made it there.

I realise this is not the only scenario to which an ARFF would respond. I am merely pointing out that the "running off the end of the runway at Broome" scenario that was raised by someone is probably not the strongest justification for an ARRF at Broome.

[thorn bird]

Did I read somewhere that in the San Francisco 777 event
the main casualties were caused by fire trucks running over survivors?

[Stikman]

Did I read somewhere that in the San Francisco 777 event
the main casualties were caused by fire trucks running over survivors?
That particular survivor wasn't actually a survivor, insofar as they were already dead when the firetruck ran over them.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From a crash report....

"Two 16-year-old girls with Chinese passports were found dead outside the aircraft soon after the crash, having been thrown out of the aircraft during the accident.
One was accidentally run over by an airport crash tender after being covered in fire-fighting foam.
On July 19, 2013, the San Mateo County Coroner's office confirmed that the girl was still alive prior to being run over by a rescue vehicle, and was killed due to blunt force trauma.
On January 28, 2014, the San Francisco city attorney's office announced their conclusion that the girl was already dead when she was run over."

[Lookleft]

We're a long way from Ballina now Toto!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ah well,

Back to Ballina,

Orf the end of '06' at Ballina....a 'quick' slide across the 120m of smooth grass...right into 'North Creek', and a rapid deceleration in the 'drink'....(Your lifejackets are located under your seat, do not inflate until out of the aircraft exit...) Do they have bull sharks in North Creek? Do ya feel 'lucky'..??

Orf the other end, '24', a 'quick' slide across the grass, thru the fence, and across another grass paddock, (reasonably good so far...), and then into a swamp...OUCH!. (Do they have crocs at Ballina..??) Just Kidding!

It will never happen....

Cheers :ok:

p.s. Do the 'Firies' at YBNA have boats of any kind? North Creek is a 'definite' possibility....

[megle2]

Jetstar stuffed around this morning at Ballina, had to hold while a departing Jab got out of the way, no transponder and spasmodic radio use. Jetstar should send the Jab a bill

[Aussie Bob]

That's all well and good Megle but a transponder is not required and spasmodic radio use seems to be an affliction most of RAA and some of GA specialise in. Crappy radios too on the odd occasion.

Thankfully (I am guessing) there was a competent crew in the Jetstar ...

[megle2]

yes handled very well by the Airbus

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The Jab had just as much right to be there as the RPT, but Australian "professional pilots" aren't to big on rights, when it is assumed "lesser" aircraft are involved.
Some of you guys would be really unhappy in US, where all normal civil aircraft have exactly the same ATC priority, and at un-towered airfields, I have never heard a Regional give an "instruction" to another aircraft, it is really quite pleasant, the civilised way everybody manages to fit in, with the minimum of fuss.

yes handled very well by the Airbus

You mean they waited their turn? Bully for them, maybe they should each be awarded a chocolate frog for conforming to the rules??

Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

in US, where all normal civil aircraft have exactly the same ATC priority

Don't IFR have priority over VFR in Class B?

[megle2]

Sled, the Bus went into a hold until they could recontact Jab who was thought to be at 3500 and figure out where he was
Nothing to do with waiting their turn, no frog for you

[Aussie Bob]

Was their window not working?

[Lookleft]

Very difficult to see a Jabiru at 3500' out of anyone's window Bob let alone a jet that has slowed to 200kts. LS once again proves his self-confessed superiority about all things aviation is inaccurate.

[KRUSTY 34]

Maybe Bob was employing sarcasm. At least I hope he was?

[Aussie Bob]

I was, the only thing harder to see than a white Jabiru would have to be a drone.
Looking for it while closing at 200 knots ... well, big sky theory I guess.

[LeadSled]

yeah yeah yeah so you've said and trust me I'm no CASA advocate, but I'm sure there are things that they have implemented over the years which we all scoff at, but has made Australia one of or the safety aviation industry internationally.


Folks,
I missed this one before and there speaks the voice of ignorance.

In a 2000 (or thereabouts) US NTSB verified study of comparative aviation safety outcomes in AU, the AU rates for GA were around double US, and the airline figures were none to bright, either, but I choose not to quote them here.

Recent reports have suggested that rate is now about three times US. I have not (and have never claimed to) done an updated analysis, but a quick look at the numbers, plus the steady improvement in the US, over the years, and the lack of any reasonably discernible improvement in AU, suggests to me that the recent report is probably correct.

I can say, after 50 plus years in the aviation business, mostly in AU, that good air safety outcomes in the major airlines are in spite of CASA, and its predecessors, not because of it.

Tootle pip!!

[red_dirt]

Well that's your opinion and that's fine so well just have to agree to disagree

[thorn bird]

I have strong doubts Australia is any "safer" today than it was back in the sixties when I first got involved, but thats just my opinion, which counts for nothing with our regulator.

One thing is patently obvious however is Australia has become so safe (debatable), or so over regulated (many would agree), that the aviation industry cannot possibly remain sustainable, therefore the whole argument of who's safer is irrelevant as in Australia genuine commercial General Aviation is in terminal decline.

Aviation, by this I mean the general kind,will be reduced to a very few heavily subsidised entities owned by ex DOD or CAsA people and staffed by ex RAAF skygods, or businesses masquerading as charities staffed by ex RAAF skygods conducting essential services, its already happening, sad, but I fear its now unstoppable. Only my opinion I know, of course there are many from CAsA who would disagree, then their livelihoods are not in jeopardy.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And those businesses, Mr T B, will all go 'broke' because they will be 'managed' - read 'mismanaged' - by the same skygods who think they know 'everything', but in reality are incapable of running a business in the commercial sense - which is the only sense when running a COMMERCIAL business.....

Why do they think they can re-invent the wheel??

I have seen it happen several times.

No 'taxpayers' funds in the commercial world!

And 'common sense' ain't so common no more.....But all of this is 'another story'......

No cheers, nope, none at all....:{

[megle2]

Thornbird and Griffo are so close to the mark, very close

[LeadSled]

Well that's your opinion and that's fine so well just have to agree to disagree

Red Dirt,
The NTSB verified figures are FACT (F-A-C-T) and not my opinion.

That the comparative AU figures have deteriorated since then is also F-A-C-T.

Whether the Australian figure is 2+, 2.5., 2.8372 or about 3 times US hardly matters, they are all terrible figures, and an indictment of the "Australian" approach of regulating aviation to a standstill, compared to what happens in US.

You can "regulate" till you are blue in the face, in areas where there is no safety problem, and it will not improve the outcome --- the CASA way.
Or you can do what FAA has been doing since about a decade after it was formed (1957) and direct effective effort at the areas where preventable accidents are happening, and aiming to prevent them.

If "regulation" was the "answer", just legislate to make an accident a strict liability (or better still, absolute liability) criminal offense --- easy done --- we are just about there --- but strangely enough, it doesn't seem to work, I wonder why??

Tootle

[Capn Bloggs]

Tootle ed note no pip
Too many reds, Sled?? :=

[actus reus]

Lead,
You keep making these statements about '3 times the US safety record'.
As I said in a previous thread, if you can back your claims up, then please inform us all of how you arrived at this conclusion.

I have repeated my last post on this matter. If you like, I can post the figures from earlier but I still cannot see where you get this stuff from.

I stand to be corrected of course.


"Lead,

I do not have the inclination to check years 2000/2001. Fifteen, sixteen old data is historical to say the least.

I suggest you review 'no one's post.

As for 2013, a year there are comparable figures available (even if you try to remove the Part 103 data you still have 'aerial work' as a problem), the rate for the USA would rise slightly to approx 64/ million flight hours.

The OZ rate was 78/million flight hours in 2013.

For the five years of 2009-2014, the OZ rate was never even close to double the USA (refer my previous post).

As I said, I stand to be corrected but if you have proof or numbers of any sort to support your contention that the accident rate in OZ is three times the USA rate, then publish them.

As they say, anyone who makes a statement of fact must have the data to back them up otherwise, they are just someone who has an opinion."

[LeadSled]

Lead,
You keep making these statements about '3 times the US safety record'.
As I said in a previous thread, if you can back your claims up, then please inform us all of how you arrived at this conclusion.

I have repeated my last post on this matter. If you like, I can post the figures from earlier but I still cannot see where you get this stuff from.

I stand to be corrected of course.
Actus,
Instead of repeating yourself like a broken record, why don't you read what I have actually posted, and save yourself the task regurgitating the same "objections" to what I haven't actually said.

In part:
Whether the Australian figure is 2+, 2.5., 2.8372 or about 3 times US hardly matters, they are all terrible figures, and an indictment of the "Australian" approach of regulating aviation to a standstill, compared to what happens in US.

Tootle pip!!

[actus reus]

Mr Sled,

I am sorry, I thought you said this:

'Recent reports have suggested that rate is now about three times US. I have not (and have never claimed to) done an updated analysis, but a quick look at the numbers, plus the steady improvement in the US, over the years, and the lack of any reasonably discernible improvement in AU, suggests to me that the recent report is probably correct.'

If you put your very obvious anger aside for a moment, I would be interested to know what 'numbers' you had a 'quick look at'?

The mere fact that you say something does not make it necessarily true.
I thought anyone here can have an opinion whether you agree with the poster or not.
As a 'doyen' of PPRUNE which I assume you think you are given your quickness to object to anyone who does not agree with you or actually does not categorically criticise CASA or any other regulator for that matter, you should give all of us, or me at least, the benefit of your extensive Australian experience and aviation knowledge.

And, as I have also said, I stand to be corrected.

[thorn bird]

Actus,

from your debates with Leadie I surmise you possibly consider Australia is safer and has always been safer statistically than the USA.

If this is so, can you provide the data on which you base that assumption.

[actus reus]

Thorn,
No, I have never said that OZ is statistically safer then the USA. What I did say and continue to say is that I cannot see on any statistical evidence I can find that OZ has 3 times the accident rate of the US.

IF Lead Sled or anyone else can show that the OZ rate is 3 times the US rate than I stand to be corrected (which I have no difficulty with).

Lead says that he has had a 'quick look' at the 'numbers': I merely ask, Ok, if you want to go around saying that OZ is 3 times worse than the US, show me and everyone else 'the numbers'.

[LeadSled]

I merely ask, Ok, if you want to go around saying that OZ is 3 times worse than the US, show me and everyone else 'the numbers'.

Actus,
You really have difficulty with reading and comprehension, don't you.

The NTSB verified study made us twice the US rate, comparing apples and apples, that is F-A-C-T, FACT.

When, in a recent aviation media article, the figure of "about three time" came up, I had a look at the figures, and knowing the downward long term trend in US, and the little or no progress here, over the years, the "apples and apples" comparison seem reasonable, or put another way, more likely to be true than false.

I would have thought anybody of reasonable comprehension would have understood that I made no claim to doing all the detailed work necessary to get an exact analytical figure.

Whichever way you look at it (and this includes public transport) the Australian air safety record is lousy, with major improvement in the US, improvements CLEARLY not achieved in Australia, since the 1960-70s.

Whether you like it or not, the US is the air safety benchmark, in every category but gliding, and given the increasing CASA intervention, they will undoubtedly screw up that record, or should I say "standardize" our air safety record.

Why don't you do something useful, and turn your mind to WHY Australia has such a lousy record, by any measure.

Tootle pip!!

PS: There is no anger in this, just a statement of unembellished fact, and the further fact that people like you can't accept that the air safety record in Australia is not very good (contrary to popular misconception) and to most of us with experience both sides of the pond, the reasons are quite obvious.

[Capn Bloggs]

Don't worry, Actus, he does it all the time. "This is fact fact fact" but is unable, or can't be bothered, to prove it. A simple link would do. It gets so tiresome that one actually does wonder whether what he says is right. Certainly the yanks crash more RPTs than we do so I'd like to see his justification for 3 times worse safety here, not that I'm expecting it.

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3049.pdf

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
Looks like you are no more able to read and comprehend plain English than actus -- but what else is new??

Be careful what you say about RPT, our record of RPT and public transport accidents (to ICAO definitions) is none too bright, statistically.

At any hour of the day or night, in US, there are around 6-7000 IFR aircraft in the air, and around 50,000 active flight plans. In Australia, how many?? Several hundred at peaks -- in about the same land area.

We have had quite a few RPT fatals over the years, don't forget how small Australian public transport aviation really is, statistically so small that a single B737 loss would catapult us into "third world" territory, as far as statistical aviation safety outcomes go.

Even the oft made claim that we have never had a fatal turbo-jet public transport accident is not correct.

And, as you must know, Ansett, "TAA" and Qantas have all had some very close goes, where lady luck was on our side.

Matthew 13:13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

The same old mantra, Leddie (as Dick). "Same land area..." Ballderdash! 90% of the Australian land mass is devoid of anything, let alone aeroplanes! A US ppruner over on Tech Log said he'd never done a VOR! Thousands of real-life non-radar NPAs are done here every year. The threats are different, but they are there.

I've given the data that shows you're speaking rubbish. Now YOU prove otherwise, or keep quiet.

[LeadSled]

I've given the data that shows you're speaking rubbish. Now YOU prove otherwise, or keep quiet.

Bloggs,
All you have done is produced a link to one IATA annual report, big deal.
As I have so often said, you are entitled to your opinions, and you are entitled to be wrong.
Which, in my opinion, once again, you are, wrong.
Try and read what I have actually written, something quite different to what you would like me to have written, but didn't.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Anybody who wants a copy of the original "double the US" report, ask AOPA, it is their publication, or ask the Minister's Office.

[fujii]

At any hour of the day or night, in US, there are around 6-7000 IFR aircraft in the air.....

I just looked at the US on Plane Finder which included Canada and a bit of Central and South America. Total shown 526. I don't know where the other 5500 to 6500 are.

[LeadSled]

At any hour of the day or night, in US, there are around 6-7000 IFR aircraft in the air.....

I just looked at the US on Plane Finder which included Canada and a bit of Central and South America. Total shown 526. I don't know where the other 5500 to 6500 are.

Fujii,
How about you try FAA, that would be ATC traffic figures, that would be a good start.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Here's another for you, Luddie, in particular page 12. I wonder where my diggings will lead me to next? More evidence that Leddy is sprouting @#? :ouch:

http://www.icao.int/safety/documents/icao_2014%20safety%20report_final_02042014_web.pdf

[Capn Bloggs]

Total shown 526. I don't know where the other 5500 to 6500 are.
They're there, they just don't have ADS-B yet. :}

Only joking, of course, I see Flight Radar is showing 8100 world-wide at the mo. Around 300 over the US and 300 over Australia.... :hmm:

[actus reus]

Blogs,

I can only agree with your observations.

But we should not cavil over a missing few thousand flights or apparently compelling flight safety facts which seem to be similarly elusive.

After all, the mighty LED SLED has spoken and we should respect that.
And I guess that is a F-A-C-T.

Pathetic.

[Lead Balloon]

But you and the Capt aren't seriously suggesting that there are around the same number of IFR aircraft in the air in Ausrtralia at any one time as there are in the USA?

[LeadSled]

But you and the Capt aren't seriously suggesting that there are around the same number of IFR aircraft in the air in Ausrtralia at any one time as there are in the USA?

LB,
That looks to be the case, such is the local self-delusion.

Does Plane Finder/Flight Radar rely on ADS-B?? Last time I looked, less than 10% of the airline fleet had 1090ES ADS-B, the figures for GA was a bit over 10%, a mix of UAT and 1090ES.

Bloggs and Actus, instead of continuing the rant against me, why don't you get a copy of the original NTSB verified report from AOPA or the DoIT, and do your own projections.

Around 300 over the US and 300 over Australia....Aaaaamazing, simply aaaaaamazing, but it's from Bloggs, so it must be fact, unquestionably accurate.

Why do we bother with all that records stuff from FAA, Eurocontrol, ASA etc, when we can get the roooly troooly facts so easily.

Tootle pip!!

[fujii]

LeadSled,
Plane Finder is now showing around 5500 aircraft over the US but it is now the middle of the day. The last snapshot was around 0600 on the east coast. What I had a problem with was your "any hour of the day or night" statement

[actus reus]

Sled,

The only thing I would like to see is your figures on how you continually come to the conclusion the OZ GA accident rate is 3 times that of the USA.

Anything else you say is just obfuscation.:ok:

[actus reus]

Sled,

I am not going to do all the research for your contention but I have found many things including this:

"In 2005 the NTSB published a report examining the methodology used in the US to estimate activity data for general aviation and on-demand operations.

The report found that the survey methodology used to develop estimates of annual hours flown in these categories is likely to be inaccurate and
may not have provided a reliable basis for estimating accident rate trends in the US.

(National Transportation Safety Board, 2005).

Hence, a comparison of accident rates in Australia and the US based on hours flown may be misleading, and should be treated with some caution.

Nearly 90% of US accidents involved general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in
Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation (Part 91). Accidents in other categories were either infrequent or rare."
(ATSB TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION REPORT)
Aviation Research and Analysis Report
B2004/0321
Final

3 times a questionable rate in the US huh?

[Lead Balloon]

Nearly 90% of US accidents involved general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation (Part 91).You realise of course that that has nothing to do with comparative rates of accidents between USA GA and Australian GA, even if those numbers are true?

It's hardly surprising that the proportion of GA accidents compared with other categories in the USA is higher than in Australia. The USA is not killing GA off as quickly as in Australia.

This is so laughable that it could have been written by the ATSB:Accidents in other categories were either infrequent or rare.You can tell it was written by experts, by the use of the internationally-recognised categories of aviation accident and incident rates: "Rare", "Infrequent", "frequent" and "the place is lousy with them".

[actus reus]

Mr Balloon,

Well, I thought the other 'Lead' took the cake when it came to non-sequitor, seriously flawed thought processes overlaid with a handsome dose of nonsense.

Well, I think it has become a close race between the two of you for the gold medal in the 'say what you like, but make sure OZ is crap and do not worry about the facts' award.

Oh, and I almost forgot; it is always the regulator's fault...

I am tired of this.

Lead Sled; you do not appear able to produce anything other than rhetoric so let's leave it at that.

I can find numerous biblical quotations to describe fools but, for now, I will not call on any imaginary friends for support.

Hang on, I could just make it up and no-one will dare question me...

[Lead Balloon]

non-sequitorQED. :ok:

[actus reus]

Balloon,

QED? Yes, what has to be proved has been proved.

Lead Sled makes things up and then gets incensed when he is called to prove what he maintains.

He sprouts crap; Fullstop.

And by the way, my previous post was a quote from an ATSB report, not my interpretation or regurgitation of words.

Oh, I forgot, the ATSB is suspect when it comes to statistics as well. Right?

[Lead Balloon]

I have enough first hand knowledge to be justifiably sceptical of every syllable produced by ATSB.

But let's try to chunk this up into little bits to see where we diverge. You posted this quote:Nearly 90% of US accidents involved general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation (Part 91).Do you consider that the content of that sentence has any relevance to a comparison of the accident and incident rates of GA in the USA and GA in Australia?

Given the context in which you posted that sentence, you appear to be suggesting that its content is relevant to that comparison. If you are making that suggestion, you are evidently very confused and, simply, wrong.

[Lead Balloon]

A lesson in maths.

Let us assume that in the USA, 10% of the fleet is comprised of transport/RPT aircraft and 90% of the fleet comprises GA aircraft.

Let us assume that in Australia, 30% of the fleet is comprised of transport/RPT aircraft, and 70% of the fleet comprises GA aircraft.

Let us also assume that the accident and incident rates for all aircraft in both countries are the same.

Loh and behold! The outcome is that "90% of US accidents involve general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents are in general aviation (Part 91)".

That's the outcome, even though the rates of accidents and incidents are, in that set of assumed circumstances, the same.

Let us now assume that in the USA, 60% of the hours flown each year are flown by GA aircraft, and 40% of the hours are flown by transport/RPT aircraft.

Let us also assume that in Australia, 20% of the hours flown each year are flown by GA aircraft, and 80% of the hours are flown by transport/RPT aircraft.

Let us also assume that it is true that 90% of US accidents involve general aviation, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation.

Loh and behold! On the basis of that set of assumed circumstances, the rate of accidents and incidents in GA in Australia is higher than in the USA, even though 90% of US accidents involved general aviation, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation.

And please: I'm not suggesting that the assumed circumstances are the reality. I am merely pointing out that you cannot draw any valid comparisons of the rates of GA accidents and incidents in the USA and Australia from the sentence you quoted.

[actus reus]

Mate,
My post #115 is a direct quote from the report of the ATSB as indicated by the inverted commas.

That is the full quote. The mention of '90% etc is part of that quote and is merely there to show the FULL quote to avoid the accusation of 'cherry picking' my sources; not for any other reason.

I do not consider those percentages to be particularly relevant to the '3 times the USA' nonsense but others may.

As I have said since the start of this thread, I stand to be corrected but only by published facts not by speculation or some other 'red herring' approach.

Why do some people continually want to degrade OZ? We are not that bad and I find it amazing that those who do not think so (which they are entitled to believe) want to force their unsubstantiated negativity down everyone's throat.

I have spent a lot of time in the test flying world. DATA (if available) but always the 'scientific method'; hypothesis: test the hypothesis etc.

As Maynard Keynes (the economist) said: 'when the facts change, I change my mind: what do you do'?

[fujii]

Lo, not Loh. LOL

[LeadSled]

'when the facts change, I change my mind: what do you do'? Actus,
But, my dear chap, the "facts" have not changed.

The AOPA AU study was verified by NTSB, on behalf of the then Minister --- because he was disinclined to believe it, because he "knew" how safe aviation Australia "is", so he wanted and received independent expert NTSB verification ---- FACT.

So, those "facts" have not changed, they are F-A-C-T, FACT.

Just to try and make the point, again, for you and Bloggs, who both seem to be equally challenged when it come to reading and comprehending plain English, I did NOT STATE AS A FACT, at any time, that the current rate was three (3) times.

The three (3) times came from a report in credible media, all I have ever said about that report, based on trend data in US and AU over the years since the AOPA AU report, is that it is probably correct, it is more likely to be true than false.

I know what you would like me to have said, but I didn't. FACT.

Tootle pip

PS: Re. accurate utilization totals, the uncertainty factor is not new, and is equally true in Australia. This was considered,and allowed for, in the original AOPA report.

After all, would you expect otherwise, given the professional competence of those employed by AOPA to do the study, and the professional competence of those who peer reviewed the final document --- Statistics PhDs.

Ask AOPA for a copy of the document.

CASA has actually claimed that the difference between US and AU (having acknowledged the poor AU comparison) that the reason is the number of accidents that go unreported in US. Given the population densities alone, an unreported aviation accident in US is more unlikely than Australia, let alone CASA allegations of unreported US fatal accident. If you want "proof" of that CASA attempted such a "justification" of the poor Australian air safety outcomes versus USA, look up the minutes of the CASA SCC for the first couple of meeting.

A similar claim was made (by the same CASA person) at the so called FLOT (FLOP) Conference around the same time.

[actus reus]

Sled,

Post #2 on the 'Forsyth Review-Dead in the Water' thread, you said this:

QUOTE:

"Sunny,
Already happening.
In around 2000, our GA accident rate was around double the US.
In figures published quite recently, it is now treble the US, a great outcome for the L-A-W/We are policemen/Capital R Regulation approach of CASA.
This as well as the economic disaster CASA has visited on ALL sections of aviation.
Tootle pip!! UNQUOTE.

Now you say you did not say that, huh?

[Frank Arouet]

He did say, IN FIGURES PUBLISHED QUIET RECENTLY without attributing it to himself. Somewhat like I said on 9MAR: "I've always fund them, (CAsA), quick to enter into action. They are understanding, helpful, honest, flexible, polite and generous to a fault". It was on Dicks thread and you really had to read the whole text to see what I was really saying.. I hope this helps your Legal studies.

[LeadSled]

In figures published quite recently,Actus,
Give it up, it is exactly as I have said.
Turn your "auto-rage" setting down a click or three on your Kneejerk-O-Meter, better still to "Off Mode" and take a deep breath.
Learn to read and comprehend plain English. Nothing in your last post invalidates what I have said, you know as well as I do that I did not publish the figures, and have not claimed to.
Tootle

[actus reus]

Frank,
Are you for real???

There is a statement (look at the thread yourself) made by SLED that he is adamant he did not make.

Seems to me (and the quoted statement is what caught my attention in the first place on the 'Forsyth' thread) that he can only be accused of either:
1. Lying in the post above, or
2. That his memory is comparatively short and works only to support his current position on any subject.

Can you think of any other reasons that might have caused SLED to seemingly lie?

Thank you for the advice on the legal studies.

[red_dirt]

OO OO OO I know!!!!

because the argument doesn't suit his cause?


(now awaiting one of Leads disdainful comments in reply)

[wishiwasupthere]

(now awaiting one of Leads disdainful comments in reply)

Arrogantly prefixed with 'Folks' to try and infer some level of authority on just about every single subject!

Tootle pip.

[red_dirt]

or
my dear chap

or
You really have difficulty with reading and comprehension, don't you

or
you are no more able to read and comprehend plain English

When losing an argument just revert to talking down to your opponent in a disparaging tone

[Frank Arouet]

actus my old spiv: Indeed I am real. Send me a PM and I'll put you on the Christmas card list.


wishiwasupthere: Sometimes it's better to be down here than being up there and wishing you weren't. That's all folks.


red_dirt: are you related to the poison dwarf or possibly had recent contact?

[red_dirt]

Way way way before my time Frank

[actus reus]

Frank,

When someone quotes something or someone (without any citation) and then proceeds with a derived argument from that proposition, or develops an extension of that statement (e.g. LEAD decides the difference in accident rates between the USA and OZ is CASA's fault) without any cautionary comments, it is normally to be taken 'in context'.

There is a legal convention around that but I will not go on as it is most probably not too important for those of us who struggle with 'plain English'.

[Lead Balloon]

I do not consider those percentages to be particularly relevant to the '3 times the USA' nonsense but others may.Errrrrm, what "others"?

You were the person who quoted the percentages. Why would you quote percentages that you don't consider to be "particularly relevant" to support your argument?

Not only are the percentages you quoted not "particularly relevant", they are completely irrelevant without knowing the percentage of the fleet and hours flown GA v everything else in the USA and Australia.

The "legal convention around this" is: Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus vntosissimis exponebantur ad necem. (Rough translation: In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.) :ok:

[actus reus]

Sled,

I am tempted to react and reply in kind but I would have to stoop too low to get to the bottom feeding world.

Read post #122.

Grow up.

[gerry111]

Actus reus,


I think you may be confusing LeadSled with Lead Balloon. They are not the same person.

[actus reus]

Gerry,

Thank you; obviously you are correct. In my haste to do other things today I mixed up my leads.

Lead Sled,

My sincerest apologies, I have wronged you.

Lead Balloon,

There is your answer in post #136.

Too many lead saddlebags.

Actus.

[thorn bird]

"Everything old is new again"
Yup, even the shiny new part 61 licence, remarkably like my old licence from 1979, only difference the old licence fitted in your shirt pocket, the new one you need a valise to fit it in, guess the next one will require a wheelbarrow, after that a minivan.

With regards to fuel remaining, I wouldn't worry too much, after the Pel Air disaster.
(sorry incident)

A whole bunch of CAsA experts calculated entirely different fuel burns for the event, all of them were wrong according to the real experts from the industry.

Let the Numpies think or accuse what they like..."prove it"

if you run out completely, well you deserve all you get.

[Lookleft]

Thanks for bringing the thread back to the topic TB.:confused:

[LeadSled]

Arrogantly prefixed with 'Folks' to try and infer some level of authority on just about every single subject!

Wishi,

On the contrary, "Folks" is a very proper word to use in this sensitive and caring and non-discriminatory day and age, being politically correct in carrying no assumption as to pan-sexual identity, or connotations of variations from cisgender in an age of non-judgemental gender fluidity, an important consideration in ensuring that that common hetero-normative biases do not result in the use of such unacceptable addresses, as Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Madam, Miss, Ms, Mister, Esquire or any similarly outdated terms. Not to mention such blatantly sexist and gender judgmental determinative expressions as: "Chaps and Chapesses".

After all, wasn't it Buggs Bunny who said: "That's all, folks" --- obviously way ahead of hit's time.