10 dead in 42 days
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This summary from Paul Phelan is worth a read regarding the lack of action on the senate inquiries 26 recommendations. Note Warren Truss was at that time talking as the opposition now he holds the ministerial post so could/should act.
Truss demands action on Senate Committee?s ATSB/CASA recommendations | Pro Aviation
There is a link in the article to another that summarizes the 26 recommendations.
Truss demands action on Senate Committee?s ATSB/CASA recommendations | Pro Aviation
There is a link in the article to another that summarizes the 26 recommendations.
The year-to-date sees a National total 21 lives lost.
Last edited by 1a sound asleep; 27th Oct 2013 at 16:22.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask my non aviator friends if they have their car brakes serviced every 100 hours of driving. They obviously don't, but they still depend on them as a critical safety device every intersection.
I think there is too much maintenance on aircraft. Humans are willing to wear any risks associated with something if the utility is high enough.
-Living in Latrobe Valley next to a smoke factory [tick]
-Accepting a giant liquid chemical storage facility near major populations [tick]
-Standing room + No seatbelts on a train/bus [tick]
-Smelling that nice benzene, cancer-causing fumes at petrol stations [tick]
Ok the list is endless, yet the utility/safety/legislation is unbalanced with aviation. I'd like to see a study pair up flying experience/currency improving safety against lesser maintenance standards, like getting rid of TBO's and doing maintenance by inspection (oil analysis, etc). On a tangent, what kind of stupid idea is it pulling a new engine to pieces after ~2000hrs, then adding that rebuild risk to what could have otherwise been a nice working engine for another 2000hrs+.
My hypothesis would be that making aviation cheaper, thus encouraging more flying and experience would be equally as safe per million hours flown. And if not, divide by a utility score so if the productivity and usefulness increase from more flying rates, then we should be willing to accept the same safety standards as a motor vehicle, public bus or train in GA.
I think there is too much maintenance on aircraft. Humans are willing to wear any risks associated with something if the utility is high enough.
-Living in Latrobe Valley next to a smoke factory [tick]
-Accepting a giant liquid chemical storage facility near major populations [tick]
-Standing room + No seatbelts on a train/bus [tick]
-Smelling that nice benzene, cancer-causing fumes at petrol stations [tick]
Ok the list is endless, yet the utility/safety/legislation is unbalanced with aviation. I'd like to see a study pair up flying experience/currency improving safety against lesser maintenance standards, like getting rid of TBO's and doing maintenance by inspection (oil analysis, etc). On a tangent, what kind of stupid idea is it pulling a new engine to pieces after ~2000hrs, then adding that rebuild risk to what could have otherwise been a nice working engine for another 2000hrs+.
My hypothesis would be that making aviation cheaper, thus encouraging more flying and experience would be equally as safe per million hours flown. And if not, divide by a utility score so if the productivity and usefulness increase from more flying rates, then we should be willing to accept the same safety standards as a motor vehicle, public bus or train in GA.
Like has already been noted, at any given period like the one being discussed, many people are going to die in road crashes. Most people in the community abhor road crashes but will agree with an authority figure such as a police commissioner when that person appears on TV during a holiday period and makes a direct appeal that people need to slow down, not drink and drive, monitor their fatigue levels, obey the rules, take care, etc. What will virtually never happen though is people or groups in response to serious accidents calling for cars to be banned because (unlike the "mystery" of why an aircraft has crashed), it's generally fairly obvious what has caused a road crash (even the seemingly ridiculous ones where two cars travelling in opposite directions have a head-on for no apparently valid reason).
Unfortunately we'll always be subject to more "safety" rules, checks and balances that are of a dubious level of genuine risk reduction (like your 2000 hr TBO example that I agree is a poorly thought through ruling...often provocative rather than preventative maintenance) because we're involved in something regular people don't understand except that it's "terribly dangerous...." and when something is not understood, out comes nanny-state style of "protecting the public" rule making that's a response to fear, hence often not effective.
I think your hypothesis that safety levels would increase if it was less expensive has a fair degree of validity up to a point (i.e. if it's too cheap we'll have a different set of issues).
Humans have a morbid fear of plummeting to their deaths from 30,000’. They imagine that it’s a far worse way of dying than, say, smashing into a tree in a car at 120kph.
Of course it’s a nonsense.
But it’s part of the ‘mystique’ of aviation that justifies more and more rules to ‘prevent’ aircraft accidents.
It’s like ASICs. The façade of security makes the punters ‘feel’ safe.
Of course it’s a nonsense.
But it’s part of the ‘mystique’ of aviation that justifies more and more rules to ‘prevent’ aircraft accidents.
It’s like ASICs. The façade of security makes the punters ‘feel’ safe.
Last edited by Creampuff; 28th Oct 2013 at 01:32. Reason: Typo: "Worst"
One of the strengths and one of the weaknesses of aviation is that we keep better records of accidents than nearly any other industry (probably behind oil & gas and nuclear, but way ahead of medicine). That lets trolls like the one who started this thread create beat-ups.
Ask for statistics many deaths or injuries are caused by mistakes in our hospital system and see how far you get.
Ask for statistics many deaths or injuries are caused by mistakes in our hospital system and see how far you get.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sinbinned
I was referring to that crash in Darwin recently. Apparently it was a heart attack.
But while it may not be the case the amount of health related accidents sure have gone up. I guess it can be attributed to the stretching waistlines and the relaxed medical standards don't help either.
But while it may not be the case the amount of health related accidents sure have gone up. I guess it can be attributed to the stretching waistlines and the relaxed medical standards don't help either.
Who said a heart attack caused the crash, as opposed to the crash causing the heart attack?
If it was said, it was mere speculation.
If it was said, it was mere speculation.
Last edited by Creampuff; 28th Oct 2013 at 01:32.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashes and Heart Attacks
I don't often agree with creamie, but that is likely the case - the crash = the heart attack, not the heart attack causes the crash.
An example of a Nanchang at Moruya springs to mind, where there was not even a coroners inquiry over the death of the pilot and the crash:
Just "Crash caused by heart attack".
The description of the final manuavre by eye witnesses, for a series of Yak and Nanchang [basically exactly the same aircraft] is very similar both in OZ and overseas.
I have speculated - Is this due to some other cause [such as a flight control going wrong??] - we will never know when the Hempel report is read - as I have and see the issues raised in this.
Sorry for the slight thread drift.
An example of a Nanchang at Moruya springs to mind, where there was not even a coroners inquiry over the death of the pilot and the crash:
Just "Crash caused by heart attack".
The description of the final manuavre by eye witnesses, for a series of Yak and Nanchang [basically exactly the same aircraft] is very similar both in OZ and overseas.
I have speculated - Is this due to some other cause [such as a flight control going wrong??] - we will never know when the Hempel report is read - as I have and see the issues raised in this.
Sorry for the slight thread drift.
I was referring to that crash in Darwin recently. Apparently it was a heart attack.
An autopsy would be required to determine if it was a heart attack, and that generally takes longer than we've had. Nor would the results be publicly available - or at least until there was a coroners finding.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: werribin
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Old Arko
Troll?? Excuse me?? You know nothing about me or my motivation for starting this thread. Keeping records or not isn't the issue here and I'm not sure what your point is in that regard. Whether its written or not people have died, that is a fact, not a beat up. Id welcome your constructive comments but you don't need to be rude.
Troll?? Excuse me?? You know nothing about me or my motivation for starting this thread. Keeping records or not isn't the issue here and I'm not sure what your point is in that regard. Whether its written or not people have died, that is a fact, not a beat up. Id welcome your constructive comments but you don't need to be rude.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: werribin
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cream Puff, I don't know what next, I only have questions, not answers, concerns not solutions. If you want a hypothesis, Id say there will be nothing next, life goes on, for some of us at least.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey hey guys, whats perhaps of interest is that despite all our "Rules" we are still not safer than other comparable countries. That should be an indication that the volume of rules dont necessarily transfer to the volume of accidents.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silly silly people around here arguing and throwing around hypotheticals. What we need here are two things;
A) Queensland's Campbell Newman. He can enact laws overnight that include the banning of all things aeronautical! That will at least fix Queensland's plane crash issues, and
B) Give the AG more powers. Powers to not only ban anything aeronautical but he can enact laws that prevent pilots congregating together, reading ERSA or Jepp charts or even ban them from wearing pilot uniforms and epaulettes, and make them hand them in.
Hell I can even see Campbell being enthroned as the new DAS come March. Imagine all that he could do to this scourge of the modern century, Aviation?
A) Queensland's Campbell Newman. He can enact laws overnight that include the banning of all things aeronautical! That will at least fix Queensland's plane crash issues, and
B) Give the AG more powers. Powers to not only ban anything aeronautical but he can enact laws that prevent pilots congregating together, reading ERSA or Jepp charts or even ban them from wearing pilot uniforms and epaulettes, and make them hand them in.
Hell I can even see Campbell being enthroned as the new DAS come March. Imagine all that he could do to this scourge of the modern century, Aviation?
Last edited by Cactusjack; 28th Oct 2013 at 12:23.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old Akro
I did some research into this a while back. I don't recall much detail, but I do recall that it is very rare for a heart attack to cause a crash. It is however moderately common for a pilot to die after landing. I gather one's body keeps it together long enough to get out of the immediate situation.
From memory (and I'm probably paraphrasing him horribly here), his view was that almost nobody dies at the controls of an aircraft of a heart attack or similar condition. When people have one coming they decide they're not really feeling tip top, and go to bed, where they die in their sleep. They don't use it as a cue that perhaps they should go flying!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: werribin
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting read
I came across this document from RA-Aus and thought it relevant to this thread.
Safety: Recent RA-Aus accident history
Safety: Recent RA-Aus accident history
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: werribin
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused
Hmmm Ausstats were pretty good right up until the 1995 Year Book Australia. Seems the figures they had listed for previous years aviation accidents don't correlate with the books from 1995 onwards, whats with that?