Fear Of Flying Or Fear Of CASA - Understanding Risk.
Thread Starter
Fear Of Flying Or Fear Of CASA - Understanding Risk.
I am starting to wonder if the reason for Australias substandard GA aviation safety record is CASA itself. I suspect that the policy, implementation, structure and content of the regulations themselves are self defeating in that they contribute to increased risk. By that I mean pilots may be arbitraging the operational risks of flying against the risk of prosecution or other action by CASA (eg; "show cause" notices) and deciding that the prudent action may be to accept greater operational risk because it reduces CASA risk.
I am personally aware of at least one "I learned about flying from that" moment that never made it into the a form of safety message because of the threat of CASA regulatory action.
Perhapas more seriously is the impact of something like the proposed CASA part 91 fuel reserve policy. - You must land with your 30 minute final reserve fuel intact, if this cannot be done, you are required to make a Mayday call and that triggers an investigation leading to possible prosecution.
In public service aviation (AkA RAAF) landing at an "en route alternate" as called for in Part 91 is fine. You are on overtime, as are your passengers, the RAAF will organise fuel engineering, food and rescue if necessary at no cost to you. Now compare that to a poor GA operator he lands at a farm strip somewhere because he must not cut into his 30 minute buffer - not even by a minute. He has to bear the cost of discontented pax, accommodation, fuel ferrying etc. etc. personally.
There must be more examples of draconian over regulation, vindictively and capriciously enforced that compromise operational safety.
I am personally aware of at least one "I learned about flying from that" moment that never made it into the a form of safety message because of the threat of CASA regulatory action.
Perhapas more seriously is the impact of something like the proposed CASA part 91 fuel reserve policy. - You must land with your 30 minute final reserve fuel intact, if this cannot be done, you are required to make a Mayday call and that triggers an investigation leading to possible prosecution.
In public service aviation (AkA RAAF) landing at an "en route alternate" as called for in Part 91 is fine. You are on overtime, as are your passengers, the RAAF will organise fuel engineering, food and rescue if necessary at no cost to you. Now compare that to a poor GA operator he lands at a farm strip somewhere because he must not cut into his 30 minute buffer - not even by a minute. He has to bear the cost of discontented pax, accommodation, fuel ferrying etc. etc. personally.
There must be more examples of draconian over regulation, vindictively and capriciously enforced that compromise operational safety.
You are on overtime
Also, whilst I understand what you are suggesting regarding increased risk due to increased fear of persecution/prosecution, your poor example about a RAAF flight landing unplanned somewhere due to less than reserve fuel, with the suggestion that that is "fine" does not really reflect the reality of the situation. It would not be considered "fine" at all, and whilst the ramifications may not be considered "criminal", there would likely be ramifications...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unforecast headwinds would be the obvious answer.
My company had a fuel incident enroute to Australia due to a pacific island ATC- par for the course- incompetent hold down causing excessive fuel burn. The pilots elected to drop into an enroute alternate to pick up fuel so as not to arrive in a major Australian city with less than the required extra hold fuel. Aussie ATC caused a stink..CASA passed it back to our home regulator which made a 5 minute call to me where I explained the situation, and got told by them it was a ‘storm in a teacup’ and CASA would be told to bugger off in the nicest possible way
My company had a fuel incident enroute to Australia due to a pacific island ATC- par for the course- incompetent hold down causing excessive fuel burn. The pilots elected to drop into an enroute alternate to pick up fuel so as not to arrive in a major Australian city with less than the required extra hold fuel. Aussie ATC caused a stink..CASA passed it back to our home regulator which made a 5 minute call to me where I explained the situation, and got told by them it was a ‘storm in a teacup’ and CASA would be told to bugger off in the nicest possible way
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish if you spent as much time building this 'so called plane' as you do complaining on Pprune about CASA, you'd be too busy flying to be on here.
I expect the Lead's to be along any moment.
I expect the Lead's to be along any moment.
Just go flying Sunny, obsession with rules will only keep you grounded. I would also suggest that if you end up with only 30 minutes of fuel in your bugsmasher you would be guilty of piss poor planning. If you then reported it unnecessarily you would also be guilty of gross stupidity.
Just go flying Sunny, obsession with rules will only keep you grounded. I would also suggest that if you end up with only 30 minutes of fuel in your bugsmasher you would be guilty of piss poor planning. If you then reported it unnecessarily you would also be guilty of gross stupidity.
Reminds me of the time USAF B52's were based in England. One of the pilots was offered a trip in a single seat Vampire which had an endurance of about one hour and 10 minutes at the most without drop tanks. In fact my log book shows several Vampire flights of 45 minutes and the most was one hour 20 minutes and that was a cross-country flight with drop tanks.
The B52 pilot was quite surprised when he was told to restrict his Vampire flight to 45 minutes due fuel consumption. He replied that in that case he was in a Mayday situation even before take off..
The B52 pilot was quite surprised when he was told to restrict his Vampire flight to 45 minutes due fuel consumption. He replied that in that case he was in a Mayday situation even before take off..
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also am aware of a number aircraft types who would include a “MAYDAY FUEL” with their taxi call when performing air displays.
You must land with your 30 minute final reserve fuel intact, if this cannot be done, you are required to make a Mayday call and that triggers an investigation leading to possible prosecution.
I believe this procedure was developed after a South American aircraft crashed in the US because the pilots were unable to communicate the fact that they were running out of fuel.
It is now a two stage process where the pilot advises ATC he/she is on "Minimum Fuel" meaning that he/she understands the delays but is unable to accept any further slide in landing time. The second is "Mayday Fuel" indicating to ATC that the pilot will now now be at the mandatory arrival fuel requirement and no further delay can be accepted.
Language should be no longer a barrier as there are only two conversations to be had and ATC is required to understand both.
I believe this procedure was developed after a South American aircraft crashed in the US because the pilots were unable to communicate the fact that they were running out of fuel.
It is now a two stage process where the pilot advises ATC he/she is on "Minimum Fuel" meaning that he/she understands the delays but is unable to accept any further slide in landing time. The second is "Mayday Fuel" indicating to ATC that the pilot will now now be at the mandatory arrival fuel requirement and no further delay can be accepted.
Language should be no longer a barrier as there are only two conversations to be had and ATC is required to understand both.
Sunfish you wrote "Perhapas more seriously is the impact of something like the proposed CASA part 91 fuel reserve policy. - You must land with your 30 minute final reserve fuel intact, if this cannot be done, you are required to make a Mayday call and that triggers an investigation leading to possible prosecution."
I believe that it is now an international procedure arising from a South American aircraft crashing in the US due to the pilot being unable to get the message through that he was running out of fuel.
There are two stages:
"Minimum Fuel" - advises ATC that the pilot accepts the current delay but cannot accept any more;
"Mayday Fuel" - advises ATC that you will now arrive with the minimum reserve and no further delay can be accepted.
Oviously someone should investigate how it happened but if you arrive with minimum fuel then apart from generating (in Australia) a routine ATC occurrence report the pilot has not breached any regulation.
I believe that it is now an international procedure arising from a South American aircraft crashing in the US due to the pilot being unable to get the message through that he was running out of fuel.
There are two stages:
"Minimum Fuel" - advises ATC that the pilot accepts the current delay but cannot accept any more;
"Mayday Fuel" - advises ATC that you will now arrive with the minimum reserve and no further delay can be accepted.
Oviously someone should investigate how it happened but if you arrive with minimum fuel then apart from generating (in Australia) a routine ATC occurrence report the pilot has not breached any regulation.
