GADRIVR,
shhhh mate don't spoil it, this is more fun that watching potato chips being thrown to seagulls.:ok:

Matt Hall and the "water incident"
 

j3pipercub. I have read your posts and I am sure you firmly believe that Matt Hall was not totally truthful in his comments pre-hitting the water. I am a couple of days off seventy, have been involved in aviation since 1958 and rather than attend events such as motor racing and Red Bull Air Races hoping to witness a crash, I attend such events to enjoy the skill displayed by the participants in the particular sport. I am certain that the vast majority of those attending such events have the same reasons as do I for going.

As others have said, you are entitled to your opinion. So too are those who disagree with your thoughts on the matter. I have no desire to fly an aircraft in the manner the RBAR pilots do, I do however marvel at their skill and their professionalism. Being mere mortals, they sometimes err. Thankfully mostly they survive to fly another day and I, for one, fully support them.

j3pipercub - have you actually had any training in risk management? Serious question, not a jibe.

well put 'old fella' it's the skill factor not the carnage factor.
lets hope that 'MR CASA' continues to allow the nanny state to keep hosting the race and see it move to the east coast.

Leave RBAR where it is!
 

Get your greedy eastern states eyes off RBAR!:= We like it just where it is, flown best off Langley Park and over the magnificent arena of the Swan River. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif Aren't you guys satisfied with living off the taxes and royalties generated by WA businesses? :}

RBAR Venue
 

Hornet306, having been to Perth on numerous occassions, including to watch the RBAR, I agree that having the aircraft operate from Langley Park and compete over the Swan river is ideal, but don't deny the rest of Australia the opportunity to see the RBAR "live". Getting to the West and back East is not a cheap exercise and there would be many who cannot afford the travel and accomodation costs. As for living off the royalties and taxes generated in WA, some of us earn a living independent of WA generated funds. There you go, you wanted to "wind-up" someone, so now you can feel satisfied and have a nice day!!!

Nope, that's why Rudd is asking for more!

Comment on the Matt Hall facebook page;

:ok:

Aagh, good old Harry Secombe (Sir Cumference after his knighthood) or neddy seagoon!

Every time I read pprune (which is really pretty bad for my health), I pray even harder that "normal" folk never discover its existence, for if they did, they'd probably never fly in a plane again.

j3pipercub, for all the poo-hooing he is copping, does have a valid point of view, despite the bravado and bullsh*t posted by some others so far.

There is a limit, which may of course vary from person to person, as to what level of "risk" is deemed appropriate before people other than the main risk-takers start getting hurt. That's what he is debating. RBAR themselves have imposed additional safety restrictions (much to some competitors' public angst - but hey, you wouldn't be a pilot if you didn't feel it was your god-given right to do whatever the hell you want, would you?) in this year's comp. That's as good a sign as any that race organisers feel safety could be improved, while not detracting from the spectacle.

As for Matt (and speaking as ex-RAAF and having also scared the living daylights out of myself several times), put plain and simple, he screwed up, then made an excellent recovery. However another nanosecond of aileron response and it might have been a different story.

More like "put plain and simple, he screwed up, then got really lucky." There wasn't much that was deliberate about that "recovery". What wasn't fear and instinct was pure luck.

As far as "risk mitigation" is concerned, I'm more with J3 on this one. The whole "risk mitigation" thing is, in my opinion, nothing more than a language construct to explain what most of us know instinctively, but which generates reams of paper and professional-sounding opinions that only serve to mitigate the risk that the activity may be banned by the feckless government agencies that are out to spoil our fun. And, of course, makes a bunch of money for risk mitigation "experts".

Doing Risk Mitigation on RBAR is a little like doing Risk Mitigation on throwing a lighted match into a can of petrol... sometimes the match is snuffed out, and sometimes there is a big bang...

The RBAR is quite fun to watch, and should be allowed to continue, but nobody should be under any illusion that it is particularly safe. As far as I can see, the first fatality is simply a matter of time... as the two extremely lucky recent events illustrate.

Risk isn't a single live/die thing.

There are degrees to risk, and risk mitigation involves getting the degrees into the green or the amber, rather than the red where death is 100% inevitable.

Maybe, but I would say that the difference between a competently planned race without Risk Mitigation, and one with Risk Mitigation, is simply slightly different shades of greenish amber. You can still die, but death is not inevitable at a particular event - although it is a statistical probability over a number of events.

A race without risk mitigation would not, by definition, be competently planned. RBAR without risk mitigation would be me and some mates jumping into some souped up aerobatic machines having never done anything like it before in our lives and "having a go". Might be great fun, and might even be interesting as a spectator sport, but it would be incredibly risky compared to the real RBAR. The argument here is not really about whether there is any risk mitigation it is about how much should we accept. The organisers and pilots obviously accept what is in place at the moment, some here think there should be more, whatever, if you do much more to reduce risk you end up taking away anything interesting about it. Hey, lets do it at 3000', and why not put a 4g limit on it. Lets prohibit bank angles greater than 45 degrees and pitch angles more than 30 degrees. And lets make the aeroplanes two crew, and ensure there's a toilet in case the guys need a break mid-flight. I think that as it stands it is no more dangerous than an airshow, and that is as it should be.

You'd make a great senior RAAF officer!:E

"As for Matt (and speaking as ex-RAAF and having also scared the living daylights out of myself several times), put plain and simple, he screwed up, then made an excellent recovery. However another nanosecond of aileron response and it might have been a different story."



..... and your point is??!!:bored:

He screwed up, then made an excellent recovery. However another nanosecond of aileron response and it might have been a different story.

Wasn't that what I said? Hang on a sec while I check...........yep, that's what I said.

Is there an alternative way to interpret this statement? Are there multiple possible "points"? He was lucky. Lady luck shone upon him. His wingtip hit the water just as he was managing the recovery from the g-stall. His roll rate was just enough to get him (approximately) upright before the first impact. He had just enough airspeed and power to climb away with the momentum after hitting the water.

Geezus mate. Do I have to spell it out to you???? He WAS F***ING LUCKY.

Don't get me wrong. We all need luck and I've personally had my fair share of it. I also know others who are either buried deeply in the ground, or whose ashes are scattered all over the place, who didn't get their slice of luck.

So you are saying that air race events planned before the invention of the magical buzz-words "Risk Mitigation" were inherently unsafe? And that the application of common sense, airmanship and consultation can't get the job done?

As far as I am concerned, the world has become a less satisfying place since the advent of excessive Health and Safety legislation, endless risk assessments for every possible human activity, and quality assurance programs that do little to assure anything. Aviation is full of this crap, and Australia is a world leader in anal regulation - sorry chaps, but it is. Have a look at automotive ADRs sometime if you want a lesson in the futility of over-regulation...

Great if you like living in a Nanny State, otherwise a sure road to blandness and the triumph of the soporific.

Remoak, no Im saying that risk mitigation is something people have been doing forever. Call it common sense, airmanship, or whatever. Any properly organized event has some kind of restraints in place to control risk and always has done. It doesn't matter what you call it.

"Risk mitigation" is the new buzz word whereby we attempt to quantify common sense. Used properly it is actually reasonably useful, however it is fast becoming something that those without experience and/or ability cling to as a butt-covering procedure.
The ADF is gripped by risk mitigation mania on all levels, not just aviation. In my opinion it is a useful tool when developing new capabilities. However risk mitigation is almost mandatory for routine activities and has degenerated into a self-fulfilling paperwork exercise.