Forsyth Review - Dead In The Water.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled,
I have no interest in your battle with either CASA or any other aviation regulator in the world.
I have been employed to obtain AOCs in various jurisdictions (including Malta, the USA and the Bahamas to name but a few) and all that has taught me is that every regulator has it's foibles.
You just deal with the one in front of you and rather than bitch and moan, you try and get through it as painlessly as possible.
My interest in this thread is the contention that OZ has 3 times the accident rate of the USA.
That seemed bizarre to say the least.
As for continuous improvement in the US record, refer to the table in my post above. It does not seem that is the case either.
So, rather than attack me (and, apparently, others like me) put up your facts.
Don't play the man; play the ball if that makes any sense in your parallel universe where everything in OZ is 'bad' and everything everywhere else is 'good'.
I have no interest in your battle with either CASA or any other aviation regulator in the world.
I have been employed to obtain AOCs in various jurisdictions (including Malta, the USA and the Bahamas to name but a few) and all that has taught me is that every regulator has it's foibles.
You just deal with the one in front of you and rather than bitch and moan, you try and get through it as painlessly as possible.
My interest in this thread is the contention that OZ has 3 times the accident rate of the USA.
That seemed bizarre to say the least.
As for continuous improvement in the US record, refer to the table in my post above. It does not seem that is the case either.
So, rather than attack me (and, apparently, others like me) put up your facts.
Don't play the man; play the ball if that makes any sense in your parallel universe where everything in OZ is 'bad' and everything everywhere else is 'good'.
I have no interest in your battle with either CASA or any other aviation regulator in the world.
I have been employed to obtain AOCs in various jurisdictions (including Malta, the USA and the Bahamas to name but a few) and all that has taught me is that every regulator has it's foibles.
You just deal with the one in front of you and rather than bitch and moan, you try and get through it as painlessly as possible.
I have been employed to obtain AOCs in various jurisdictions (including Malta, the USA and the Bahamas to name but a few) and all that has taught me is that every regulator has it's foibles.
You just deal with the one in front of you and rather than bitch and moan, you try and get through it as painlessly as possible.
Can we gather from that, that you believe CASA just has a few foibles, which is hardly a common view, as illustrated by the Forsyth report, the latest of many investigations as to what is wrong with CASA and its predecessors.
Or, perhaps the history of ICAO and FAA audits, which hardly suggest CASA is a shining example for others to copy (even if this is a self-delusion shared held by a few in CASA)
You won't need anything much bigger than a phone box, to have a meeting with people of the same mind as yourself.
My interest in this thread is the contention that OZ has 3 times the accident rate of the USA.
That seemed bizarre to say the least.
As for continuous improvement in the US record, refer to the table in my post above. It does not seem that is the case either.
That seemed bizarre to say the least.
As for continuous improvement in the US record, refer to the table in my post above. It does not seem that is the case either.
Perhaps you should re-read my posts as they have been written, I have said that the NTSB verified figures are just that, and a quick examination of the figure behind the newspaper report of "three times" now, versus double in the NTSB verified study, seemed reasonable, based on the trends over the years. I did not produce the "three times" figure, as I have made (I thought) very clear, I think the numbers seem reasonable.
The US trend has certainly flattened out in recent years, and there are the inevitable year to year fluctuations. Seems like you understanding of statistical analysis (versus seeing what you want to see) is somewhat limited.
in your parallel universe where everything in OZ is 'bad' and everything everywhere else is 'good'.
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
No One. Let's start a list of some of these more restrictive CASA requirements compared to the FAA. There are hundreds.
It's destroying our GA industry.
It's destroying our GA industry.
It isn't just destroying GA, a higher accident rate means that people are being killed or injured at a higher rate than elsewhere.
As for a list of list of specific silly rules how about these for a start:
- CAR 120 Preventing Weather reports being used unless they come from an official source.
- CAO 40.0 (2.7) making it harder for a pilot to practice instrument flight.
- CAR 166A 2(f) Preventing an early turn on takeoff (eg to miss wake turbulence or to help sequence big and small aircraft together)
- Extensive engineering orders for fitting newer instruments. Compare that with the FAA's flysafe program where the approval of fitting of things like AOA is streamlined to encourage greater fitment. see FAA and GA Community Launch Fly Safe Campaign
And then you can get onto the bigger picture issues.
- In Australia an instructor can only work through a flight school. In the USA the instructors are typically independent(Though there is a system of commercial pilot training that is closet to the Australian system, part 141). The lack of independent instructors increases the cost of instructing. IN the USA it is pretty common for a group like the local EAA chapter to have a few instructors, who are happy to do the odd bit of instructing on the side. This means that someone who hasn't flown for 6 months has easy access to an instructor to help them with a few laps of the circuit.
- The Australian system has an endorsement for everything. This leads people to the thinking that I have the training therefore I am safe. Take for instance formation flight. In the USA you do not need any particular endorsement. It is pretty common for a couple of guys going to lunch at another airport to go in a loose formation. If they have to transit any controlled airspace the controller only has to issue one clearance and the flight passes through. A lot less chatter on the radio. On the other hand if you want to fly in a bit group in a tight formation training is required often to a fairly high level. EG see Formation and Safety Team | Formation And Safety Team. The Australian system gives a pilot about 10 hours in a 172 with one other and calls that a formation endorsement.
- There is a lot of focus on things in the PPL syllabus that do not kill you while things that do are not taught. In the FAA syllabus they have a tihng called the "ground reference maneuvers". Essentially turns at 500 AGL around a point or along a railway line. It is done as a techniques in teaching for coordinated flight and accounting for wind drift. It also give people exposure to the optical illusion that occurs low to the ground where the inside wing tip appears to move forward relative to the background encouraging people to add more rudder in the turn and spin in when turning base to final. Search Pivotal Height for more explanation.
These exercises are missing from the AUS PPL syllabus. Instead we have things like lost procedures, which while useful it is difficult to imagine in this day and age with GPS being lost resulting in death in a few seconds like spinning in turning final would.
I suspect that making any changes to fix any of these issues will be difficult. The industry will be reluctant to give up the income that issuing endorsements brings in as well as feeling threatened by independent instructors. They need to recognize that if the numbers of pilots increase then they will be better off rather than trying to get more money from each pilot.
It will also take some time for pilots to realize that they need to take full responsibility for their safety. The "I have the paperwork and therefore I am ok" attitude might not be explicitly stated by people but it is ingrained in many peoples subconscious. This will likely mean that the accident statistics get worse before they get better if the CASA system is changed. This may take 8 to 10 years. There is a risk that a new system is trialed and abandoned before its benefits can be determined.
Folks,
In short, FAA training and recurrent training concentrated on where accidents actually happen.
Just to expand a little on no_one's last post, as encouraged by the FAA, and required to be demonstrated in an FAA flight test, my experience is that the standard of handling exhibited by those I fly with (or Australian pilots who have been subject to years of Flight Safety recurrent training) in US is substantially better than here.
In particular, with regard to ground referenced maneuvers, nothing similar exists here. In FAA land, there is great emphasis on low speed coordinated flight, it's low and slow mishandling that causes "low and slow" accidents.
By contrast, in my last but one Flight Review here, the "instructor" wanted me to demonstrate some thing called "maneuvering in cruise", apparently to "experience" the control loads, compared to slower speeds. When I suggested some serious low speed flight ---- "Not required" was the firm reply. He (is was a he) was clearly sh1t scared of "slow speed", to the degree that he was not happy with an approach at 1.3 Vs.
No wonder we have standards problems here, and anybody who has seriously looked at the Part 61, and understand what they are reading, will be appalled, particularly where low speed flight is concerned.
Tootle pip!!
In short, FAA training and recurrent training concentrated on where accidents actually happen.
Just to expand a little on no_one's last post, as encouraged by the FAA, and required to be demonstrated in an FAA flight test, my experience is that the standard of handling exhibited by those I fly with (or Australian pilots who have been subject to years of Flight Safety recurrent training) in US is substantially better than here.
In particular, with regard to ground referenced maneuvers, nothing similar exists here. In FAA land, there is great emphasis on low speed coordinated flight, it's low and slow mishandling that causes "low and slow" accidents.
By contrast, in my last but one Flight Review here, the "instructor" wanted me to demonstrate some thing called "maneuvering in cruise", apparently to "experience" the control loads, compared to slower speeds. When I suggested some serious low speed flight ---- "Not required" was the firm reply. He (is was a he) was clearly sh1t scared of "slow speed", to the degree that he was not happy with an approach at 1.3 Vs.
No wonder we have standards problems here, and anybody who has seriously looked at the Part 61, and understand what they are reading, will be appalled, particularly where low speed flight is concerned.
Tootle pip!!
