Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Why does CASA allow twin engine ETOPS operation at all?

Old 3rd Feb 2018, 06:29
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 434
Dick, how far do you want to take the "safety must be the most important consideration" thing?

Do you want to mandate that every aircraft must take off with full tanks, and must plan to land with half remaining?
And also wrap every passenger in flame proof bubble wrap and wear a helmet in case of a crash? And with a small scuba setup in case of a ditching?
Because after all, that is surely safer than allowing passengers to wear shorts, singlets and thongs!


I think you are twisting words and interpreting what's written with your own agenda clouding things.

As for the Airbus Glider, it probably would have been good if the pilots didn't pump fuel overboard. That in itself is not an EDTO or two-engine-aircraft-only screwup. If they had 3, 4 or even 12 engines the outcome would have been the same.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 06:36
  #102 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Car. You completely misunderstand what I am saying.

My view has always been the opposite to what you are implying.

It is the CASA act that states the myth that safety is the most important consideration.

Why not get the act to reflect what happens in practice. I would support that.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 06:45
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Car. You completely misunderstand what I am saying.

My view has always been the opposite to what you are implying.

It is the CASA act that states the myth that safety is the most important consideration.

Why not get the act to reflect what happens in practice. I would support that.


Ok let's use your regional air service point. You reckon CASA are putting cost ahead of safety by allowing "lesser" aircraft to service them. So what do you expect if safety was put first; tiny towns to upgrade runways to take CAT D/E 4 engine aircraft with level 10 RFFS and ATC and CATIII ILSs to each runway?
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 07:11
  #104 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Wow. This is difficult.

I expect CASA to be open and honest and state that in many cases they do not put safety in front of affordability.

And to be consistent. The unique early ADSB mandate has done extraordinary damage to GA. Too late now to do anything about it.

No other country I know of has the absolute statement “ most importantly consideration should be safety “

The bureaucracy over 20 years ago forced this into legislation. They insisted that the traveling public is so dumb they can’t be told the truth about affordable safety.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 07:28
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 434
Well why don't you collect evidence and challenge them?
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 07:44
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,343
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD View Post
Well why don't you collect evidence and challenge them?
He won't, because the evidence that ETOPS twins are less safe than quads doesn't exist.
It was not to improve safety over four engined aircraft. Not once has anyone claimed that is was to increase safety. If that was so they would say so
Again, demonstrably false. To obtain ETOPS approval, Boeing submitted several analysis to the FAA and EASA (JAA in those days) showing ETOPS twins were at least as safe as quads. I have first hand knowledge of this. I presume Airbus did something similar.
You're arguing based on emotion, not facts. The facts say that ETOPS twins are at least as safe as quads.
Bottom line is your gut tells you four engines are safer than two. Facts say otherwise. Emotion once said "if man was meant to fly, he'd have wings" Fortunately enough people listened to the facts that said otherwise. Regulations based on emotions instead of facts usually kill people.
Dick, you just go on and continue arguing that two plus two equal five. Just don't expect the rest of us to play your silly game - I'm tired of arguing with a fool and I'm out of here.
tdracer is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 08:08
  #107 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Looks as if Regulators believe that there is a difference in safety because restrictions are put on twin engined aircraft operations that are not put on three or more engines. Wonder why they do that if identical safety levels? Very mysterious
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 09:16
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 272
No other country I know of has the absolute statement “ most importantly consideration should be safety “
I get what you're saying Dick (many posters here don't seem to), it is about the fact that CASA's official objective doesn't reflect what they actually do.

However, can you imagine the field day the media would have when they got wind that our aviation regulator stated its objective to be something like "to ensure an aviation industry with a fair balance between cost and safety".

Are you able to elaborate on how regulators overseas have worded their objectives in a way that you think would be more suitable?
mikewil is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 09:17
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: meh
Posts: 660
“There’s no such thing as bad publicity,”
-- P. T. Barnum
Plazbot is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 10:39
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 45
Posts: 1,045
SImple; CASA allowed for ETOPS in the rules and the manufacturers and Airlines eventually came up to the standard and have gained approval ..if CASA hadn’t wanted ETOPS then they wouldn’t have had it in the CAOs and Australia would’ve been an outlier in world aviation
mattyj is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 10:47
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,106
If CASA has examined an operation, and considers the same degree of safety can be accomplished by alternative means and one of them happens to be cheaper than the other, what is the issue? By ruling an operation safe, have they not fulfilled their obligation to make that their primary concern?
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 20:39
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 337
Dick has tried to make a point using a somewhat obtuse argument. However his point is valid. He knows that EDTO in two engined airliners is safe. Even airlines say their number one priority is safety but we know that this is is board room lip service, they need to squeeze every cent they can out of an operation. If it was their priority then they would go broke. Even with the CASA QUANGO, high costs and the Aussie love of regulation I'm not sure that our tiny market can support a very large aviation sector anymore, even the US appears to be struggling.
ernestkgann is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 20:53
  #113 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Traffic. You state “ by ruling an operation safe”

That is the problem. That is an absolute statement and would be an untruth.

The word “safe” means without risk. There is no such aviation operation. There should be no problem in communicating the truth.

If you communicate the truth it means you can allocate the limited and finite resources to where the greatest improvement to safety can be made. It probably means you would not introduce mandatory ADSB for VFR and let pilots spend the money to fly more and gain more recent experience.

A factual statement could be “ extremely safe”.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 22:11
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post

The word “safe” means without risk.
.
.
.
A factual statement could be “ extremely safe”.
What, “extremely without risk”, then?

Dick, you’ve effectively contradicted yourself within a couple of lines. One moment, you’re claiming safety is an absolute, binary concept, and the next, you’re allowing it has different levels.

I’d consider that a rusty old VW Beetle with dodgy suspension and no seat belts is an unsafe car, and a brand new Volvo is a safe car. But neither is completely without risk. Safety can only ever be a relative thing. If your argument hinges on it being an absolute, then I think you’re in trouble, as you’ve just demonstrated with your own self-contradiction.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 22:41
  #115 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Safe is an absolute and means without risk. Extremely safe is not an absolute and means what it says. It clearly means there is some risk.

There is no contradiction.

“ the most important consideration is safety” means it is more important than affordability.

CASA only appears to comply with that when those affected are weak.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 22:57
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 334
I see - it’s an absolute, except for when it isn’t. We could probably discuss whether your approach is “moderately unique”, but I suspect that like the rest of this thread, it’d be pointless.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 22:59
  #117 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Mattyl. It was my board in about 1990 that introduced the automatic airworthiness acceptance from five leading aviation countries. This was opposed by a number of senior CAA bureaucrats.

Up until then properly FAA certified aircraft such as the Beech 1900 could not fly here.Ask Max Hazelton. Read the relevant chapter in Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom.

In those days people such as Mel Dunn resisted the affordable safety fact. CASA appears to be doing that again.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 23:08
  #118 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
It’s not.

No! If you use the word “safe” by itself it clearly means “ without risk”

If you state “ very safe” or “ extremely safe” it means something that is quite different. Sorry but this is a fact !

AsA is also supposed to give primacy to safety. Why don’t they then re allocate their profit dividend that normally goes to the government to extra safety- say a tower at Ballina?

Hint. Just like CASA they don’t comply with their act. It’s a sham to mislead the public. Polititions have been conned into believing that they cannot tell the public the truth.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Feb 2018 at 04:30.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2018, 02:57
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,106
“ the most important consideration is safety” means it is more important than affordability.
It means that safety considerations should be given more weight than others, but does not mean that safety should be the only consideration, nor does it mean that the results of that consideration cannot be mitigated by other influences.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2018, 04:21
  #120 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
If that was the way CASA interpreted the act they would not allow lesser safety standard FAR 23 certified aircraft to provide scheduled services to country towns.

If they gave “ more weight” to safety considerations than the cost of air tickets they would mandate the safer FAR 25 standard.

Pretty simple really.

In practical terms you have got to ask “if safety is the most important consideration - then - it is clearly more important than cost”

But they only selectively comply with this.

The wording is flawed but is intentionally there to mislead and allow large amounts of money to be mis allocated

Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Feb 2018 at 04:49.
Dick Smith is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.