Australian airspace unsafe
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: tasmania
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith repeatedly says that 87 people almost died when a Qantas 737 got a ground warning near Canberra.
What he doesn't say is that the national accident investigation body - the Australian Transport Safety Bureau - has described the event as serious but never life threatening as the 737 was turning away from the nearest peak when the warning alarm activated.
He also fails to mention that the pilot plugged in the wrong coords on the FMS leading to an incorrect holding pattern.
As for Lockahrt River - the pilot and f/o would have known they were in bad weather long before they were anywhere near the aerodrome. A unicom at the airport would have been stating the bleeding obvious to the flight crew.
None of Mr Smith's claims add up - as usual.
He has no credibility in Australia - I hear that less than 10 people turned up to one of his `we're all going to die forums' in Sydney - our biggest city.
What he doesn't say is that the national accident investigation body - the Australian Transport Safety Bureau - has described the event as serious but never life threatening as the 737 was turning away from the nearest peak when the warning alarm activated.
He also fails to mention that the pilot plugged in the wrong coords on the FMS leading to an incorrect holding pattern.
As for Lockahrt River - the pilot and f/o would have known they were in bad weather long before they were anywhere near the aerodrome. A unicom at the airport would have been stating the bleeding obvious to the flight crew.
None of Mr Smith's claims add up - as usual.
He has no credibility in Australia - I hear that less than 10 people turned up to one of his `we're all going to die forums' in Sydney - our biggest city.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: tasmania
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People of PPrune - I draw your attention to paragraph three. This was from our second most powerful man last year. Mr Smith had predicted an imminent air disaster in Australia.
MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon John Anderson MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Leader of The Nationals
17 November 2004
A166/2004
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: COMMENTS BY DICK SMITH
Australia's skies are safe and will continue to be safe after 25 November, despite the comments today by Dick Smith.
On 25 November, Airservices Australia will carry out enhancements to the National Airspace System. They are the product of a lengthy period of analysis and consultation.
Mr Smith's claims are not supported by anyone with any credibility in the aviation sector. The major airlines, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia all disagree with his views.
On 2 November, I released a report from CASA about the enhancements. Its Chief Executive Officer, Bruce Byron, concluded that:
Based on the material presented to CASA, including the risk mitigation strategies proposed, I have no safety-related basis to object to the planned changes being implemented on 25 November 2004.
(...) any attempt to halt the planned changes would result in widespread confusion that would present unacceptable risks to the travelling public.
The process of airspace reform will continue in line with the Government's election commitments. The next stage of the NAS reforms will take effect next year, and I will shortly be introducing legislation to establish a separate airspace directorate.
I invited Dick Smith to join the airspace reform process to offer conceptual advice on a model for airspace reform. I thank him for his contribution. The reforms are now progressing well, and I have advised him that his role is at an end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Contacts
Bill McKinley ( Minister Anderson's Office ) 02 6277 7680
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL: http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/j.../a166_2004.htm
MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon John Anderson MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Leader of The Nationals
17 November 2004
A166/2004
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: COMMENTS BY DICK SMITH
Australia's skies are safe and will continue to be safe after 25 November, despite the comments today by Dick Smith.
On 25 November, Airservices Australia will carry out enhancements to the National Airspace System. They are the product of a lengthy period of analysis and consultation.
Mr Smith's claims are not supported by anyone with any credibility in the aviation sector. The major airlines, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia all disagree with his views.
On 2 November, I released a report from CASA about the enhancements. Its Chief Executive Officer, Bruce Byron, concluded that:
Based on the material presented to CASA, including the risk mitigation strategies proposed, I have no safety-related basis to object to the planned changes being implemented on 25 November 2004.
(...) any attempt to halt the planned changes would result in widespread confusion that would present unacceptable risks to the travelling public.
The process of airspace reform will continue in line with the Government's election commitments. The next stage of the NAS reforms will take effect next year, and I will shortly be introducing legislation to establish a separate airspace directorate.
I invited Dick Smith to join the airspace reform process to offer conceptual advice on a model for airspace reform. I thank him for his contribution. The reforms are now progressing well, and I have advised him that his role is at an end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Contacts
Bill McKinley ( Minister Anderson's Office ) 02 6277 7680
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL: http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/j.../a166_2004.htm
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere seditious
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suzywiggum,
Unfortunate choice of source there - I don't think Anderson has/had much credibility in Aviation matters (or many others) either.
However, in his appreciation of Smith above, few would disagree. It's just a pity that JA didn't listen to the wide chorus of opinion expressing that before he gave Dick another go at the controls.
Unfortunate choice of source there - I don't think Anderson has/had much credibility in Aviation matters (or many others) either.
However, in his appreciation of Smith above, few would disagree. It's just a pity that JA didn't listen to the wide chorus of opinion expressing that before he gave Dick another go at the controls.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
study it carefully before the Airservices Australia people have this thread deleted.
UNICOM on the ground may have prevented the accident
Why the hell is anyone talking about adding more radar ? ADS-B is the way of the future, particularly in remote areas of Australia...
For somebody who wants to promote Australia as the flying training capital of the world your pitch is a blinding example of aimless farkwittery.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Dick Smith - is he a pilot? His terminology is strange and he seems to be extremely fond of his own misguided opinions. He is of the 'Frankenstein Food, Global Warming' genre. Oh! and 'missing death by a hairs breadth' panic mongering breed of sub human.
Dick by name, "Dick" by nature, I would venture.
Radar apparently, solves all aviation safety problems so far encountered.
Australia is, thankfully in this instance, a long way from
the UK.
Aviate 1138
Dick by name, "Dick" by nature, I would venture.
Radar apparently, solves all aviation safety problems so far encountered.
Australia is, thankfully in this instance, a long way from
the UK.
Aviate 1138
Thread Starter
Aviate1138, you ask if I am a pilot. You obviously have not read the Unsafe Skies presentation which this thread was about.
I am not an extremist and I do not believe that:
My presentation clearly explains that if you have radar you may as well use it as an extra safety feature.
May I ask why you are commenting without at least reading the presentation? You will find there is a rational explanation of why we in Australia use a ‘do it yourself’ system aircraft to aircraft when in cloud, under good radar coverage, rather than use a radar separation service – at least to help prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents.
I am not an extremist and I do not believe that:
Radar apparently, solves all aviation safety problems so far encountered.
May I ask why you are commenting without at least reading the presentation? You will find there is a rational explanation of why we in Australia use a ‘do it yourself’ system aircraft to aircraft when in cloud, under good radar coverage, rather than use a radar separation service – at least to help prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We, in Australia, do seem to have created a blind spot when it comes to the allocation of resources. We seem to happily provide world-class ATS services where there is a dollar to be made, but ignore the low level environment where there are no profits, but statistically the majority of accidents occur.
This was not an issue pre cost recovery because OCTA was used only by low performance aircraft. However there was an extensive network of Flight Service Units providing what are now known as Class F airspace services. In effect the Government provided an OCTA safety system, down to the surface, that was appropriate to the aircraft types operating.
After cost recovery this Class F system was dismantled and should have been replaced where IFR, and/or passenger services flew, with Class E/D/C services utilising radar where available. Class G would have filled in the blanks.
The Government, for whatever reason, chose not to let this happen, so what is left is a massive investment unbalance. Money is spent on en-route surveillance and control, where the Government through Airservices charges by weight and NM flown, and recieves a handsome dividend every year. Conversely there is an almost complete lack of investment in low level safety except for the existing, and now obselescently equipped, Class D towers, all of which lose money and detract from the handsome dividend. In this environment even what should be a required reaction from Airservices to traffic changes appears to have ceased. ie. Towers that should be closed are still open, and airports that should have towers are ignored.
What we are arguably left with is in some areas an OCTA (Class G) system that is no longer appropriate to the types of aircraft operating, exacerbated by a controlled airspace system imposed down to low levels, apparently without due regard for is happening underneath. eg Proserpine
Our replacement for what was an excellent though expensive Government provided Class F airspace system, is now a very cheap pilot operated Class G system.
Perhaps the international PPruners can help here because I believe that the Governments of the US and Britain still provide a low level safety system. In Britain there is a low level radar service, and instrument approaches are protected by control towers (For airline ops). In the US Class E airspace is provided down to instrument approach minimas for all IFR operations. Radar is used where it exists but I don't believe it is a pre-requisite for any type of operation. What the pilots do have in both environments is the assistance of ATC both in the provision of information and separation.
The question posed by this thread is whether an all-weather pilot organised separation service in Class G airspace without the assistance of ATC is safe or unsafe given Australia's traffic levels and mix? The answer is probably "it depends", but then that is why the cocktail of airspace classes and associated air and ground based tools has been developed. Personally I don't think we use them very intelligently. There is far too much opinion and far too little objective rule based planning.
This was not an issue pre cost recovery because OCTA was used only by low performance aircraft. However there was an extensive network of Flight Service Units providing what are now known as Class F airspace services. In effect the Government provided an OCTA safety system, down to the surface, that was appropriate to the aircraft types operating.
After cost recovery this Class F system was dismantled and should have been replaced where IFR, and/or passenger services flew, with Class E/D/C services utilising radar where available. Class G would have filled in the blanks.
The Government, for whatever reason, chose not to let this happen, so what is left is a massive investment unbalance. Money is spent on en-route surveillance and control, where the Government through Airservices charges by weight and NM flown, and recieves a handsome dividend every year. Conversely there is an almost complete lack of investment in low level safety except for the existing, and now obselescently equipped, Class D towers, all of which lose money and detract from the handsome dividend. In this environment even what should be a required reaction from Airservices to traffic changes appears to have ceased. ie. Towers that should be closed are still open, and airports that should have towers are ignored.
What we are arguably left with is in some areas an OCTA (Class G) system that is no longer appropriate to the types of aircraft operating, exacerbated by a controlled airspace system imposed down to low levels, apparently without due regard for is happening underneath. eg Proserpine
Our replacement for what was an excellent though expensive Government provided Class F airspace system, is now a very cheap pilot operated Class G system.
Perhaps the international PPruners can help here because I believe that the Governments of the US and Britain still provide a low level safety system. In Britain there is a low level radar service, and instrument approaches are protected by control towers (For airline ops). In the US Class E airspace is provided down to instrument approach minimas for all IFR operations. Radar is used where it exists but I don't believe it is a pre-requisite for any type of operation. What the pilots do have in both environments is the assistance of ATC both in the provision of information and separation.
The question posed by this thread is whether an all-weather pilot organised separation service in Class G airspace without the assistance of ATC is safe or unsafe given Australia's traffic levels and mix? The answer is probably "it depends", but then that is why the cocktail of airspace classes and associated air and ground based tools has been developed. Personally I don't think we use them very intelligently. There is far too much opinion and far too little objective rule based planning.
Thread Starter
PPRuNers may be interested to know that there is some pretty strict censorship going on. I’m not quite sure why this is so.
Originally I placed a link to my air safety website and this was deleted. On the thread dated 12 December 2005 (at 00:03) I mentioned my air safety site. Within hours this mention was edited out of the text.
This air safety website contains some very important information for professional pilots.
Can anyone explain why any mention of it is removed? Is it to stop professional pilots from being properly informed?
I should also point out that I am now barred from editing my own posts – even if I make a typo.
The air safety site is not a commercial site, it is purely in the interest of air safety – particularly for airline pilots and passengers.
Originally I placed a link to my air safety website and this was deleted. On the thread dated 12 December 2005 (at 00:03) I mentioned my air safety site. Within hours this mention was edited out of the text.
This air safety website contains some very important information for professional pilots.
Can anyone explain why any mention of it is removed? Is it to stop professional pilots from being properly informed?
I should also point out that I am now barred from editing my own posts – even if I make a typo.
The air safety site is not a commercial site, it is purely in the interest of air safety – particularly for airline pilots and passengers.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know damn well why it was removed Mr Smith. You constantly referred to the number of "hits" your site was receiving to all and sundry in a vain effort to substantiate and support your megalomaniacal and downright sensationalist "presentation". And as per normal, you shout down or just plain ignore ANYONE who disagrees with you, including pilots who may very well have far more experience and knowledge than you. And the fact you constantly refer to your site as an "Air Saftey Website" is pure falacy............it is simply a collection of your ramblings and thoughts, which every one certainly is entitled to. However, claiming it a gospel certainly is not.
I'll repeat something Cradle Mountain posted earlier that should reinforce to those who don't know you:
I'll repeat something Cradle Mountain posted earlier that should reinforce to those who don't know you:
He has no credibility in Australia - I hear that less than 10 people turned up to one of his `we're all going to die forums' in Sydney - our biggest city.
Thread Starter
Jerricho, even if what you state is true, what could possibly be wrong with allowing professional pilots to look at the site and make up their own minds?
I should also point out that many professional pilots contact me directly through the dicksmithflyer website to say that they appreciate what I am doing and they agree that Australia should maximise the use of radar and controlled airspace. Many of these professional pilots are concerned about the rising fatality rate in Australia and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance of an unnecessary airline accident.
For those that are interested, following is my abbreviated CV from the Unsafe Skies presentation. I think most will be able to see that I do have some experience.
I should also point out that many professional pilots contact me directly through the dicksmithflyer website to say that they appreciate what I am doing and they agree that Australia should maximise the use of radar and controlled airspace. Many of these professional pilots are concerned about the rising fatality rate in Australia and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance of an unnecessary airline accident.
For those that are interested, following is my abbreviated CV from the Unsafe Skies presentation. I think most will be able to see that I do have some experience.
Dick Smith learnt to fly in 1972 gaining his Command Instrument Rating in 1983. In 1991 he qualified for one of most specialised ratings of all, the approval to fly a jet aircraft as a single pilot.
Dick Smith has flown a total time of 8,500 hours including over 1,000 hours single pilot jet time. He has made five flights around the world as pilot in command. Each of these flights has succeeded on time and as scheduled because of meticulous planning and thorough risk management.
Dick Smith was appointed to the CAA Board in 1988 and was appointed its Chairman in 1990 by the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. As Chairman of the CAA, his Board and Management made major policy decisions including a change in direction to purchase a modern “Two Centre” radar based air traffic control system using a proven design. The decision was also made to move to an international airspace system.
Dick Smith was appointed the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority by the Transport Minister, Mark Vaile, in 1997. After the Aviation Reform Group was dissolved by John Anderson in November 2004 he now has no formal position in relation to aviation reform.
Over a fifteen year period, Dick Smith has travelled the World and met with the leaders of air safety regulation in the USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand and France. During this time he has gained an extensive knowledge of airspace design.
He holds the United Kingdom’s Guild of Air Navigators Sword of Honour, the Australian Oswald Watt Medal and the United States Lindbergh Award. In 1999 he was awarded the Order of Australia for his service to the Australian aviation industry.
Dick Smith is genuinely concerned about aviation safety in Australia. He is also concerned that important air traffic reforms that were started by the Hawke Government in 1990 have not been completed.
Prepared by Max Hazelton OBE AM
Dick Smith has flown a total time of 8,500 hours including over 1,000 hours single pilot jet time. He has made five flights around the world as pilot in command. Each of these flights has succeeded on time and as scheduled because of meticulous planning and thorough risk management.
Dick Smith was appointed to the CAA Board in 1988 and was appointed its Chairman in 1990 by the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. As Chairman of the CAA, his Board and Management made major policy decisions including a change in direction to purchase a modern “Two Centre” radar based air traffic control system using a proven design. The decision was also made to move to an international airspace system.
Dick Smith was appointed the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority by the Transport Minister, Mark Vaile, in 1997. After the Aviation Reform Group was dissolved by John Anderson in November 2004 he now has no formal position in relation to aviation reform.
Over a fifteen year period, Dick Smith has travelled the World and met with the leaders of air safety regulation in the USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand and France. During this time he has gained an extensive knowledge of airspace design.
He holds the United Kingdom’s Guild of Air Navigators Sword of Honour, the Australian Oswald Watt Medal and the United States Lindbergh Award. In 1999 he was awarded the Order of Australia for his service to the Australian aviation industry.
Dick Smith is genuinely concerned about aviation safety in Australia. He is also concerned that important air traffic reforms that were started by the Hawke Government in 1990 have not been completed.
Prepared by Max Hazelton OBE AM
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of these professional pilots are concerned about the rising fatality rate in Australia and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance of an unnecessary airline accident.
Sorry sorry, play the ball not the man. I notice once again you have responded to my post, yet have ignored the post from Cradle Mountain and others stating FACTS regarding some of the instances you have distorted in you sensationalist writings. What say you to them?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Down below
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh wow, man, like if we get all this radar coverage, then, like, everything, you know, will be like soooo safe, man.
I wouldn't blame the admins for editing your posts... it's fairly obviously advertising for something you're selling. Also, i'm fairly sure the Airservices Australia soldiers will be storming pprune in the UK to change your bizzare posts... *cough*
Do tell me how your plan will prevent CFIT incidents... I was having a look at the Flight Safety Foundation pages on CFIT (http://www.flightsafety.org/cfit5.html) and i'm not seeing well... anything... to support your claims. I'd leave flight safety to the professionals.
As for your dire predictions of aircraft crashes... well... that's sort of like some of the products you sell, isn't it? The smell, I mean.
I wouldn't blame the admins for editing your posts... it's fairly obviously advertising for something you're selling. Also, i'm fairly sure the Airservices Australia soldiers will be storming pprune in the UK to change your bizzare posts... *cough*
Do tell me how your plan will prevent CFIT incidents... I was having a look at the Flight Safety Foundation pages on CFIT (http://www.flightsafety.org/cfit5.html) and i'm not seeing well... anything... to support your claims. I'd leave flight safety to the professionals.
As for your dire predictions of aircraft crashes... well... that's sort of like some of the products you sell, isn't it? The smell, I mean.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He has made five flights around the world as pilot in command. Each of these flights has succeeded on time and as scheduled because of meticulous planning and thorough risk management.
A lad that accompanied you on one of these jaunts was of the opinion that it was he to whom it fell to do all the donkey work - customs, flight planning etc, etc. The way he tells it you and spouse rocked up when it was time to hit the start button and disappeared to hotel immediately the rotor stopped turning. Didn't get too much stick time either.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I hesitate to bring this back to the top, the following are the official facts from the Australian Air Transport Safety Board, in response to Mr Smiths public statements in regard to Australian aviation fatalities, which should bring some closure this discussion.
Whilst this thread is related to Airspace directly, Mr Smith has been holding public meetings advertised and paid for by himself, at which amongst other matters he has been attempting to link the most recent accidents to the "failure" of Australian aviation to enthusiastically support Mr Smiths aviation reform and airspace design concepts.
Australian Air Transport Safety Board
MEDIA RELEASE
41
ATSB releases analysis of data on aviation fatalities and pilots from 1990 to 2005
22 December 2005
ATSB data and analysis released today refutes recent claims reported in the media that the commercial aviation fatal accident rate in Australia is increasing and that the number of aviation fatalities involving professional pilots in Australia over the last three years is very high compared with the years since 1990.
Australia still has the best international record in high capacity regular public transport (RPT) with no hull losses or fatal accidents involving passenger jet aircraft.
Even using the broadest definition of commercial aviation to include both RPT and General Aviation except for business/private and sport aviation, shows a significant decrease in the number of fatal accidents between 1990 and 2005 (Fig 1). Although there was an increase in fatal accidents and fatalities for commercial operations during 2005, 2004 was the lowest recorded for the period examined for each measure.
Using the broadest definition of professional pilot, the data show no significant trend in fatalities involving professional pilots from 1990 to 2005 but a significant decline in the fatal accident trend (Fig 2). Fatal accidents and fatalities involving professional pilots were much higher compared with private pilots in 1993, 1994 and 2000 than in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The gap (related to hours flown) is neither recent nor growing.
Between 1990 and 2004 (the last year for which activity data is available) commercial aviation operations recorded an average of 0.6 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown compared with an average of 2.4 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown for non-commercial operations.
There were four low capacity RPT fatal accidents involving 32 fatalities recorded in the ATSB database from 1990 to 2005 including a 1995 training accident in which there were no passengers on board. The other three low capacity RPT accidents were Monarch (1993), Whyalla (2000) and the recent accident at Lockhart River.
The ATSB found that the total number of fatal accidents and fatalities declined significantly in the period from 1990 to 2005. The largest number of fatal accidents (30) and fatalities (64) was recorded in 1990. The lowest number of fatal accidents (10 and 11) and fatalities (24 and 23) occurred in 2002 and 2004. In 2005 there was an increase in the number of fatal accidents and fatalities to 13 and 34 respectively compared with 2004. But the number of fatal accidents and fatalities reported in 2005 was below the annual average (20 and 40 respectively) for the 16-year period.
While any aviation fatality is a tragedy and we must never be complacent, the ATSB’s analysis show that the fatal accident rate for both commercial and non-commercial operations is very low and has declined significantly from 1990 to 2005.
Media Contact: George Nadal: Telephone 1800 020 616
Fulll report here:
Analysis of data on aviation fatalities and pilots from 1990 to 2005
Whilst this thread is related to Airspace directly, Mr Smith has been holding public meetings advertised and paid for by himself, at which amongst other matters he has been attempting to link the most recent accidents to the "failure" of Australian aviation to enthusiastically support Mr Smiths aviation reform and airspace design concepts.
Australian Air Transport Safety Board
MEDIA RELEASE
41
ATSB releases analysis of data on aviation fatalities and pilots from 1990 to 2005
22 December 2005
ATSB data and analysis released today refutes recent claims reported in the media that the commercial aviation fatal accident rate in Australia is increasing and that the number of aviation fatalities involving professional pilots in Australia over the last three years is very high compared with the years since 1990.
Australia still has the best international record in high capacity regular public transport (RPT) with no hull losses or fatal accidents involving passenger jet aircraft.
Even using the broadest definition of commercial aviation to include both RPT and General Aviation except for business/private and sport aviation, shows a significant decrease in the number of fatal accidents between 1990 and 2005 (Fig 1). Although there was an increase in fatal accidents and fatalities for commercial operations during 2005, 2004 was the lowest recorded for the period examined for each measure.
Using the broadest definition of professional pilot, the data show no significant trend in fatalities involving professional pilots from 1990 to 2005 but a significant decline in the fatal accident trend (Fig 2). Fatal accidents and fatalities involving professional pilots were much higher compared with private pilots in 1993, 1994 and 2000 than in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The gap (related to hours flown) is neither recent nor growing.
Between 1990 and 2004 (the last year for which activity data is available) commercial aviation operations recorded an average of 0.6 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown compared with an average of 2.4 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown for non-commercial operations.
There were four low capacity RPT fatal accidents involving 32 fatalities recorded in the ATSB database from 1990 to 2005 including a 1995 training accident in which there were no passengers on board. The other three low capacity RPT accidents were Monarch (1993), Whyalla (2000) and the recent accident at Lockhart River.
The ATSB found that the total number of fatal accidents and fatalities declined significantly in the period from 1990 to 2005. The largest number of fatal accidents (30) and fatalities (64) was recorded in 1990. The lowest number of fatal accidents (10 and 11) and fatalities (24 and 23) occurred in 2002 and 2004. In 2005 there was an increase in the number of fatal accidents and fatalities to 13 and 34 respectively compared with 2004. But the number of fatal accidents and fatalities reported in 2005 was below the annual average (20 and 40 respectively) for the 16-year period.
While any aviation fatality is a tragedy and we must never be complacent, the ATSB’s analysis show that the fatal accident rate for both commercial and non-commercial operations is very low and has declined significantly from 1990 to 2005.
Media Contact: George Nadal: Telephone 1800 020 616
Fulll report here:
Analysis of data on aviation fatalities and pilots from 1990 to 2005
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice Work.
The ATSB forced to commit resources to a report that didn't need to be made because Dick starts creating mischief in the media - yet again.
Dick - wasn't it you complaining that the ATSB takes too long with their investigation reports?
Maybe it is because their resources are diverted to putting out the little spot fires that turn up wherever you tread?
The ATSB forced to commit resources to a report that didn't need to be made because Dick starts creating mischief in the media - yet again.
Dick - wasn't it you complaining that the ATSB takes too long with their investigation reports?
Maybe it is because their resources are diverted to putting out the little spot fires that turn up wherever you tread?