Wizfox. Why don’t you and others address the simple point I am making.

That is CASA is not complying with 9 a of the act. If the most important consideration is safety why are they allowing two engined aircraft to fly on those long remote ocean crossings?

Surely a four engined aircraft with the same safety features as the twin would be safer?

In this case they are giving the most important consideration not to safety but to affordability .

Why don’t they admit that? Why the deviousness?

And that’s what so funny (tragically funny) about aviation safety regulation. So much of it is actually based on some individual’s perception rather than objective analysis. All dressed up in the mystique of aviation of course.

9a says safety of air navigation is the most important consideration, not the only consideration.

So what does that mean? What flows from that?

In what circumstances can CASA say that saving the costs of mitigating a risk to the safety of air navigation is more important that mitigating the risk?

And an 8 engine aircraft would be safer still.

meanwhile, back in reality.....

Dick, if you are making some arcane point, make it. You are currently just making yourself look foolish.

I start the count - B777 at Heathrow.

Best not talk about single eng IFR ops in a pc12, versus a twin. :eek:

My recollection was that was caused by engine failure due to ice crystals. How would having more engines have overcome that issue?

Wizofox. No. Not an arcane point.

A valid current point. CASA is clearly not complying with the Act.

Now many of us know this but why would CASA not be open and honest about the situation.

If two engines are just as safe why have all these extra restrictions re alternates and single engine exposure time?

Apart from Lead Balloon, everyone seems to be completely missing the point Dick is trying to make.


Yes, he could come out and say exactly what he means, but he is obviously trying to prove a point by playing devils advocate. CASA states that Safety is the number one consideration, but in reality that's not feasible. Nothing is "safe". It should be about risk mitigation.


Otherwise, if you take it to the Nth degree, you basically don't fly ever, at all. Then people would have to travel by car or boat, which is probably more unsafe.

However, considering the circumstances which caused the engine flame-outs a trimotor or 4 engined aircraft may have lost all.

The answer Dick is a question of probabilities. If one reviews the total components of an aircraft most are covered by MTBO (mean time between overhauls and/or MTBF (mean time between failure) determining when such component should be removed for inspection/overhaul or replacement.

Similarly ETOPS is based upon MTBAEF (mean time between all engine failure) predicated on statistical and operational data where the Actuaries consider and define probabilities which the Regulator makes the decision upon.

The total industry is based upon probabilities yet in 2017 we had a year without any airline fatalities.

From the perspective of statutory interpretation, I don't think the Act is saying what Dick and others think it says.

If CASA did ban ETOPS/EDTO, it would be banned for all operators. No more 787 to Japan. No more A330 from China. No more international 777, 330, 787, the list goes on but basically good bye tourist industry.

Headmaster. So the act doesn’t mean that the “most important consideration” should be safety.

What then does that wording mean? Can affordability be put in front of safety?

from the CASA risk-oversight-and-management page

Risk appetite is managed through the application of a risk tolerance matrix contained within the Risk Management Framework. It incorporates applying the 'As Low As Reasonably Practicable' (ALARP) principle to the context in which any decision is being made or activity undertaken.

Safety is CASA's highest priority in all areas of aviation activity and therefore CASA has a low aviation safety risk appetite. That said, as we move from airline passenger transport, through aircraft charter and on to private and recreational aviation our risk appetite will naturally trend upward. This approach recognises both the ALARP principle and the Statement of Expectations which requires CASA to take a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors having regard to risk.

Michigan

That’s all very well but the legislation clearly does not reflect that position. And it’s obvious that in some cases the statement “Safety is CASAs highest priority” is not complied with.

If you look at the CASA class G paper they refer to the “ most important consideration must be safety “ cargo cult statement.

However most posters here state that does not count for airline passenger operations. In that case CASA clearly puts cost in front.

Why else would they allow cheaper twin engined aircraft to fly over big oceans at night?

The plane knows it's over water, AND at night, exactly how?
I've never seen a switch to change the aircraft into "over water", "night" or "over water and at night" mode.

Stop with your scare tactics.

Come on Dick, you're just being silly now. The whole of aviation runs on probability. Think take off data, airspace & separation, the list goes on.
As I understand ETOPS or EDTO, it's about quantifying risk, bringing it under management.
I'm not sure of your angle in this new near pointless thread but I'm sure it will become clear with a bit more waffle.
Life as a professional aviator is all about probability and managing risk when all is said and done.

China etc non etops is no problem, maybe 25mins more flying time. Done it a few times recently.
But that's not really what this contrived point making thread is about :rolleyes:

Maybe it's the nav light switch. Hmmm maybe best to leave it off incase it gets more dangerous