What's happening at Ballina?
yes handled very well by the Airbus
Folks,
The Jab had just as much right to be there as the RPT, but Australian "professional pilots" aren't to big on rights, when it is assumed "lesser" aircraft are involved.
Some of you guys would be really unhappy in US, where all normal civil aircraft have exactly the same ATC priority, and at un-towered airfields, I have never heard a Regional give an "instruction" to another aircraft, it is really quite pleasant, the civilised way everybody manages to fit in, with the minimum of fuss.
You mean they waited their turn? Bully for them, maybe they should each be awarded a chocolate frog for conforming to the rules??
Tootle pip!!
The Jab had just as much right to be there as the RPT, but Australian "professional pilots" aren't to big on rights, when it is assumed "lesser" aircraft are involved.
Some of you guys would be really unhappy in US, where all normal civil aircraft have exactly the same ATC priority, and at un-towered airfields, I have never heard a Regional give an "instruction" to another aircraft, it is really quite pleasant, the civilised way everybody manages to fit in, with the minimum of fuss.
yes handled very well by the Airbus
Tootle pip!!
in US, where all normal civil aircraft have exactly the same ATC priority
Sled, the Bus went into a hold until they could recontact Jab who was thought to be at 3500 and figure out where he was
Nothing to do with waiting their turn, no frog for you
Nothing to do with waiting their turn, no frog for you
Very difficult to see a Jabiru at 3500' out of anyone's window Bob let alone a jet that has slowed to 200kts. LS once again proves his self-confessed superiority about all things aviation is inaccurate.
yeah yeah yeah so you've said and trust me I'm no CASA advocate, but I'm sure there are things that they have implemented over the years which we all scoff at, but has made Australia one of or the safety aviation industry internationally.
I missed this one before and there speaks the voice of ignorance.
In a 2000 (or thereabouts) US NTSB verified study of comparative aviation safety outcomes in AU, the AU rates for GA were around double US, and the airline figures were none to bright, either, but I choose not to quote them here.
Recent reports have suggested that rate is now about three times US. I have not (and have never claimed to) done an updated analysis, but a quick look at the numbers, plus the steady improvement in the US, over the years, and the lack of any reasonably discernible improvement in AU, suggests to me that the recent report is probably correct.
I can say, after 50 plus years in the aviation business, mostly in AU, that good air safety outcomes in the major airlines are in spite of CASA, and its predecessors, not because of it.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have strong doubts Australia is any "safer" today than it was back in the sixties when I first got involved, but thats just my opinion, which counts for nothing with our regulator.
One thing is patently obvious however is Australia has become so safe (debatable), or so over regulated (many would agree), that the aviation industry cannot possibly remain sustainable, therefore the whole argument of who's safer is irrelevant as in Australia genuine commercial General Aviation is in terminal decline.
Aviation, by this I mean the general kind,will be reduced to a very few heavily subsidised entities owned by ex DOD or CAsA people and staffed by ex RAAF skygods, or businesses masquerading as charities staffed by ex RAAF skygods conducting essential services, its already happening, sad, but I fear its now unstoppable. Only my opinion I know, of course there are many from CAsA who would disagree, then their livelihoods are not in jeopardy.
One thing is patently obvious however is Australia has become so safe (debatable), or so over regulated (many would agree), that the aviation industry cannot possibly remain sustainable, therefore the whole argument of who's safer is irrelevant as in Australia genuine commercial General Aviation is in terminal decline.
Aviation, by this I mean the general kind,will be reduced to a very few heavily subsidised entities owned by ex DOD or CAsA people and staffed by ex RAAF skygods, or businesses masquerading as charities staffed by ex RAAF skygods conducting essential services, its already happening, sad, but I fear its now unstoppable. Only my opinion I know, of course there are many from CAsA who would disagree, then their livelihoods are not in jeopardy.
Last edited by thorn bird; 6th Mar 2016 at 10:47.
And those businesses, Mr T B, will all go 'broke' because they will be 'managed' - read 'mismanaged' - by the same skygods who think they know 'everything', but in reality are incapable of running a business in the commercial sense - which is the only sense when running a COMMERCIAL business.....
Why do they think they can re-invent the wheel??
I have seen it happen several times.
No 'taxpayers' funds in the commercial world!
And 'common sense' ain't so common no more.....But all of this is 'another story'......
No cheers, nope, none at all....
Why do they think they can re-invent the wheel??
I have seen it happen several times.
No 'taxpayers' funds in the commercial world!
And 'common sense' ain't so common no more.....But all of this is 'another story'......
No cheers, nope, none at all....
Thornbird and Griffo are so close to the mark, very close
The NTSB verified figures are FACT (F-A-C-T) and not my opinion.
That the comparative AU figures have deteriorated since then is also F-A-C-T.
Whether the Australian figure is 2+, 2.5., 2.8372 or about 3 times US hardly matters, they are all terrible figures, and an indictment of the "Australian" approach of regulating aviation to a standstill, compared to what happens in US.
You can "regulate" till you are blue in the face, in areas where there is no safety problem, and it will not improve the outcome --- the CASA way.
Or you can do what FAA has been doing since about a decade after it was formed (1957) and direct effective effort at the areas where preventable accidents are happening, and aiming to prevent them.
If "regulation" was the "answer", just legislate to make an accident a strict liability (or better still, absolute liability) criminal offense --- easy done --- we are just about there --- but strangely enough, it doesn't seem to work, I wonder why??
Tootle
Originally Posted by Slead
Tootle ed note no pip
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead,
You keep making these statements about '3 times the US safety record'.
As I said in a previous thread, if you can back your claims up, then please inform us all of how you arrived at this conclusion.
I have repeated my last post on this matter. If you like, I can post the figures from earlier but I still cannot see where you get this stuff from.
I stand to be corrected of course.
"Lead,
I do not have the inclination to check years 2000/2001. Fifteen, sixteen old data is historical to say the least.
I suggest you review 'no one's post.
As for 2013, a year there are comparable figures available (even if you try to remove the Part 103 data you still have 'aerial work' as a problem), the rate for the USA would rise slightly to approx 64/ million flight hours.
The OZ rate was 78/million flight hours in 2013.
For the five years of 2009-2014, the OZ rate was never even close to double the USA (refer my previous post).
As I said, I stand to be corrected but if you have proof or numbers of any sort to support your contention that the accident rate in OZ is three times the USA rate, then publish them.
As they say, anyone who makes a statement of fact must have the data to back them up otherwise, they are just someone who has an opinion."
You keep making these statements about '3 times the US safety record'.
As I said in a previous thread, if you can back your claims up, then please inform us all of how you arrived at this conclusion.
I have repeated my last post on this matter. If you like, I can post the figures from earlier but I still cannot see where you get this stuff from.
I stand to be corrected of course.
"Lead,
I do not have the inclination to check years 2000/2001. Fifteen, sixteen old data is historical to say the least.
I suggest you review 'no one's post.
As for 2013, a year there are comparable figures available (even if you try to remove the Part 103 data you still have 'aerial work' as a problem), the rate for the USA would rise slightly to approx 64/ million flight hours.
The OZ rate was 78/million flight hours in 2013.
For the five years of 2009-2014, the OZ rate was never even close to double the USA (refer my previous post).
As I said, I stand to be corrected but if you have proof or numbers of any sort to support your contention that the accident rate in OZ is three times the USA rate, then publish them.
As they say, anyone who makes a statement of fact must have the data to back them up otherwise, they are just someone who has an opinion."
Lead,
You keep making these statements about '3 times the US safety record'.
As I said in a previous thread, if you can back your claims up, then please inform us all of how you arrived at this conclusion.
I have repeated my last post on this matter. If you like, I can post the figures from earlier but I still cannot see where you get this stuff from.
I stand to be corrected of course.
You keep making these statements about '3 times the US safety record'.
As I said in a previous thread, if you can back your claims up, then please inform us all of how you arrived at this conclusion.
I have repeated my last post on this matter. If you like, I can post the figures from earlier but I still cannot see where you get this stuff from.
I stand to be corrected of course.
Instead of repeating yourself like a broken record, why don't you read what I have actually posted, and save yourself the task regurgitating the same "objections" to what I haven't actually said.
In part:
Whether the Australian figure is 2+, 2.5., 2.8372 or about 3 times US hardly matters, they are all terrible figures, and an indictment of the "Australian" approach of regulating aviation to a standstill, compared to what happens in US
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Sled,
I am sorry, I thought you said this:
'Recent reports have suggested that rate is now about three times US. I have not (and have never claimed to) done an updated analysis, but a quick look at the numbers, plus the steady improvement in the US, over the years, and the lack of any reasonably discernible improvement in AU, suggests to me that the recent report is probably correct.'
If you put your very obvious anger aside for a moment, I would be interested to know what 'numbers' you had a 'quick look at'?
The mere fact that you say something does not make it necessarily true.
I thought anyone here can have an opinion whether you agree with the poster or not.
As a 'doyen' of PPRUNE which I assume you think you are given your quickness to object to anyone who does not agree with you or actually does not categorically criticise CASA or any other regulator for that matter, you should give all of us, or me at least, the benefit of your extensive Australian experience and aviation knowledge.
And, as I have also said, I stand to be corrected.
I am sorry, I thought you said this:
'Recent reports have suggested that rate is now about three times US. I have not (and have never claimed to) done an updated analysis, but a quick look at the numbers, plus the steady improvement in the US, over the years, and the lack of any reasonably discernible improvement in AU, suggests to me that the recent report is probably correct.'
If you put your very obvious anger aside for a moment, I would be interested to know what 'numbers' you had a 'quick look at'?
The mere fact that you say something does not make it necessarily true.
I thought anyone here can have an opinion whether you agree with the poster or not.
As a 'doyen' of PPRUNE which I assume you think you are given your quickness to object to anyone who does not agree with you or actually does not categorically criticise CASA or any other regulator for that matter, you should give all of us, or me at least, the benefit of your extensive Australian experience and aviation knowledge.
And, as I have also said, I stand to be corrected.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actus,
from your debates with Leadie I surmise you possibly consider Australia is safer and has always been safer statistically than the USA.
If this is so, can you provide the data on which you base that assumption.
from your debates with Leadie I surmise you possibly consider Australia is safer and has always been safer statistically than the USA.
If this is so, can you provide the data on which you base that assumption.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thorn,
No, I have never said that OZ is statistically safer then the USA. What I did say and continue to say is that I cannot see on any statistical evidence I can find that OZ has 3 times the accident rate of the US.
IF Lead Sled or anyone else can show that the OZ rate is 3 times the US rate than I stand to be corrected (which I have no difficulty with).
Lead says that he has had a 'quick look' at the 'numbers': I merely ask, Ok, if you want to go around saying that OZ is 3 times worse than the US, show me and everyone else 'the numbers'.
No, I have never said that OZ is statistically safer then the USA. What I did say and continue to say is that I cannot see on any statistical evidence I can find that OZ has 3 times the accident rate of the US.
IF Lead Sled or anyone else can show that the OZ rate is 3 times the US rate than I stand to be corrected (which I have no difficulty with).
Lead says that he has had a 'quick look' at the 'numbers': I merely ask, Ok, if you want to go around saying that OZ is 3 times worse than the US, show me and everyone else 'the numbers'.