Ten fatalities in 9 weeks?
Golly Gee Dick...….
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less".......
(The devil made me do it....honestly....)
p.s. Thanks for.........
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less".......
(The devil made me do it....honestly....)
p.s. Thanks for.........
I trust you put in a submission to rrat-sen, Sunny.
You statement about the regulator is correct.
We havent had an efficient, consistent, ethical and lawful regulator for decades and many have lost already.,Buckley, Butson Quadrio, and many, many others..
Its a national disgrace and the burden on the "common wealth" has been astronomical.
And the lack of interest in a vital industry by Governments aand a complete lack of governance over CAsA is disgusting.
You statement about the regulator is correct.
We havent had an efficient, consistent, ethical and lawful regulator for decades and many have lost already.,Buckley, Butson Quadrio, and many, many others..
Its a national disgrace and the burden on the "common wealth" has been astronomical.
And the lack of interest in a vital industry by Governments aand a complete lack of governance over CAsA is disgusting.
fatality rate
Accidents are caused by a huge number of contributing factors which are rarely the same. So in some ways they are independent statistical events.
As such they will actually occur in a random fashion and will not occur over a short period at the same rate as the long term average.
To see this try tossing a coin 20 times and note the sequences of H and T.
SB.
As such they will actually occur in a random fashion and will not occur over a short period at the same rate as the long term average.
To see this try tossing a coin 20 times and note the sequences of H and T.
SB.
On the following Monday, the 17th, at the behest of the union, PWC got rissoled and Arthur Andersen was appointed. They reversed the cease operation and reverted to a trade on administration. The two Marks, who were the Andersen's administrators appointed, then decided to rissole Andersen and strike out on their own.
Agree with George about Ansett. I was working in the Victorian government at the time and pleaded for a rescue package. I was told to eff off, Canberra had determined that Ansett was a threat to Qantas and had to go.
Thread Starter
George Glass, do you really believe that removing Flight Service and its $40 million cost a year was a bad decision? Who would have paid the $40 million per year since then? Something like $1.12 billion to be paid for by the people with the service available to them – basically general aviation.
In relation to CTAFs, what was wrong with copying the best in the world? Or do you think we should have remained unique in Australia, where each airport was on a Flight Service frequency and CTAFs did not exist?
In relation to CTAFs, what was wrong with copying the best in the world? Or do you think we should have remained unique in Australia, where each airport was on a Flight Service frequency and CTAFs did not exist?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has ever been thus Dick and not just in Aviation. All the rest of the world is wrong, only Australia is right.
We could have had US or NZ rules for a couple of million, a couple of years to implement and had a safer system.
Instead we get our home made one's, half a billion in costs, thirty years and counting to complete and the collapse of a whole industry.
We are no safer for it, just a lot poorer.
We could have had US or NZ rules for a couple of million, a couple of years to implement and had a safer system.
Instead we get our home made one's, half a billion in costs, thirty years and counting to complete and the collapse of a whole industry.
We are no safer for it, just a lot poorer.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall being told at an industry meeting by Airservices quite some time ago that towards the end when the flight service units and briefing offices at GA airports had closed that flight service was costing about $15m per year.
And then when they were finally got rid of, very little was saved because
And then when they were finally got rid of, very little was saved because
- the functions FS provided in class G/OCTA were transferred to ATC, who were paid significantly more and required additional staff and consoles to do the work hence ATC costs increased, and
- the facilities used by FS e.g. FIA VHF outlets didn't disappear, they were transferred to ATC.
Moderator
The thread title is "Ten fatalities in 9 weeks?" and refers to the period 6 October to 16 December 2019.
Can we adhere to that period or at least recent history?
We really don't need yet another repetitious regurgitation of he last 40 years of DCA/AsA air space management and service.
Please?
For those masochists wanting to relive the past, please use our Search function to find the multitude of previous relevant threads.
Can we adhere to that period or at least recent history?
We really don't need yet another repetitious regurgitation of he last 40 years of DCA/AsA air space management and service.
Please?
For those masochists wanting to relive the past, please use our Search function to find the multitude of previous relevant threads.
OOOHHHH C'mon 'Mr Tailie'...…
I wuz jest gettin' wound up.....
OH, awright……., I'll just bugger orf then...…
Cheeerrrsss…..
xx p.s. Thanks again Mr Richard Sir.......For the...….'Big R'...….
I wuz jest gettin' wound up.....
OH, awright……., I'll just bugger orf then...…
Cheeerrrsss…..
xx p.s. Thanks again Mr Richard Sir.......For the...….'Big R'...….
Back on topic...
For those who suggest “there is no statistical significance in [a] single event that contributes such a large fraction of the sample”, “events like these are stochastic until proven otherwise” and it’s not “appropriate to extrapolate accident stats like that”, I agree. There is that trite saying about lies, damn lies and statistics.
But if you’re going to criticise Dick for implying that there is some causal connection between the specific spate of recent fatalities and ‘something else’ - I note he only asked a question about what that ‘something else’ might be - you should be criticising the others that do precisely the same. For example, look at what CASA and ATSB did to justify the Community Service Flight kneejerk. Wrap your brain around this circular logic:
Let us not entertain the possibility that waiting for “sufficiently robust data” might show that “being prospective” was really just “a kneejerk”. And strange that they don’t apply the same logic to HCRPT operations in and out of aerodromes in G. Apparently we’re going to wait for the collision that kills a a 737 full of fare paying pax before acting.
It seems to me that about the only valid conclusion that can be drawn about the accident and incident rate in Australia is that a few decades and a few hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars lazily sunk into the regulatory reform program have had little causally positive consequence for the accident and incident rate. The program has produced a few millionaires, so I suppose that’s a kind of silver lining.
It seems to me that some people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money bringing about changes that have, on balance, been generally beneficial for aviation. It seems to me that other people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money producing little that is beneficial for aviation.
For those who suggest “there is no statistical significance in [a] single event that contributes such a large fraction of the sample”, “events like these are stochastic until proven otherwise” and it’s not “appropriate to extrapolate accident stats like that”, I agree. There is that trite saying about lies, damn lies and statistics.
But if you’re going to criticise Dick for implying that there is some causal connection between the specific spate of recent fatalities and ‘something else’ - I note he only asked a question about what that ‘something else’ might be - you should be criticising the others that do precisely the same. For example, look at what CASA and ATSB did to justify the Community Service Flight kneejerk. Wrap your brain around this circular logic:
Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it’s to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We’re being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur.
It seems to me that about the only valid conclusion that can be drawn about the accident and incident rate in Australia is that a few decades and a few hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars lazily sunk into the regulatory reform program have had little causally positive consequence for the accident and incident rate. The program has produced a few millionaires, so I suppose that’s a kind of silver lining.
It seems to me that some people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money bringing about changes that have, on balance, been generally beneficial for aviation. It seems to me that other people involved in aviation spend a lot of time and money producing little that is beneficial for aviation.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 3rd Mar 2020 at 19:39.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRT to the comparison of the Ansett collapse to the current decline in Aviation, specifically the sacking of the crusty old engineers, have you tried to get hold of an inspector recently in the Melbourne office? Carmody et al aren’t replacing any inspectors who resigns, retires or walks out in disgust. And those who are left appear to be on sick leave, or seconded to other projects. Now taking months to get any applications through
Vref+5, doesn’t sound good. When TSHTF in an organisation, the scene is as you described. People leave and aren’t replaced, the rest are head down, trying not to get noticed. They know there is big trouble coming, well before senior management does.
The information I thought I saw - about CASA doing some IT based “transformation”, if true, is a desperate attempt to stave off organisational disaster. An IT solution to perceived problems is often proposed by managers trying to buy time and fix serious issues and it always fails.
The reason it fails is that if a business process is paper driven but “broken” then trying to computerise it just makes it worse. If CASA regulations are unclear now, just wait until a software architect tries to turn them into machine logic.
The information I thought I saw - about CASA doing some IT based “transformation”, if true, is a desperate attempt to stave off organisational disaster. An IT solution to perceived problems is often proposed by managers trying to buy time and fix serious issues and it always fails.
The reason it fails is that if a business process is paper driven but “broken” then trying to computerise it just makes it worse. If CASA regulations are unclear now, just wait until a software architect tries to turn them into machine logic.
To put some perspective on this, how many have died in the same period from industrial/mining accidents, car crashes, train derailments, ambulance ramping, golden staph, meningococcal, domestic violence, suicide, drug overdose, medical errors, silicosis, asbestosis, drowning, sharks and the list goes on.
All are preventable and very unfortunate, however the country does not have unlimited resources to make us 100% safe 100% of the time.
All are preventable and very unfortunate, however the country does not have unlimited resources to make us 100% safe 100% of the time.
With the greatest respect, I suggest that this is not perspective, but, rather, irrelevancy.
The point I seek to make is that analysis of accidents is important and useful. Suggestions that you have to die of something (staph, domestic violence, sharks, etc) aren't helpful to me. Nor is the suggestion that dying in a plane accident would somehow be OK.
I suspect we agree on all of the above, we might just be stating our views in difference ways.
I suspect we agree on all of the above, we might just be stating our views in difference ways.
Thread Starter
The current system is not my system.
“ my system” if you can call it that is AMATS or NAS.
I have always been opposed to the present system where VFR aircraft have to monitor an endless cacophony of calls that are irrelevant!
“ my system” if you can call it that is AMATS or NAS.
I have always been opposed to the present system where VFR aircraft have to monitor an endless cacophony of calls that are irrelevant!