What's happening at Ballina?
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'.
You really have difficulty with reading and comprehension, don't you.
The NTSB verified study made us twice the US rate, comparing apples and apples, that is F-A-C-T, FACT.
When, in a recent aviation media article, the figure of "about three time" came up, I had a look at the figures, and knowing the downward long term trend in US, and the little or no progress here, over the years, the "apples and apples" comparison seem reasonable, or put another way, more likely to be true than false.
I would have thought anybody of reasonable comprehension would have understood that I made no claim to doing all the detailed work necessary to get an exact analytical figure.
Whichever way you look at it (and this includes public transport) the Australian air safety record is lousy, with major improvement in the US, improvements CLEARLY not achieved in Australia, since the 1960-70s.
Whether you like it or not, the US is the air safety benchmark, in every category but gliding, and given the increasing CASA intervention, they will undoubtedly screw up that record, or should I say "standardize" our air safety record.
Why don't you do something useful, and turn your mind to WHY Australia has such a lousy record, by any measure.
Tootle pip!!
PS: There is no anger in this, just a statement of unembellished fact, and the further fact that people like you can't accept that the air safety record in Australia is not very good (contrary to popular misconception) and to most of us with experience both sides of the pond, the reasons are quite obvious.
Don't worry, Actus, he does it all the time. "This is fact fact fact" but is unable, or can't be bothered, to prove it. A simple link would do. It gets so tiresome that one actually does wonder whether what he says is right. Certainly the yanks crash more RPTs than we do so I'd like to see his justification for 3 times worse safety here, not that I'm expecting it.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3049.pdf
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3049.pdf
Bloggs,
Looks like you are no more able to read and comprehend plain English than actus -- but what else is new??
Be careful what you say about RPT, our record of RPT and public transport accidents (to ICAO definitions) is none too bright, statistically.
At any hour of the day or night, in US, there are around 6-7000 IFR aircraft in the air, and around 50,000 active flight plans. In Australia, how many?? Several hundred at peaks -- in about the same land area.
We have had quite a few RPT fatals over the years, don't forget how small Australian public transport aviation really is, statistically so small that a single B737 loss would catapult us into "third world" territory, as far as statistical aviation safety outcomes go.
Even the oft made claim that we have never had a fatal turbo-jet public transport accident is not correct.
And, as you must know, Ansett, "TAA" and Qantas have all had some very close goes, where lady luck was on our side.
Matthew 13:13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand
Tootle pip!!
Looks like you are no more able to read and comprehend plain English than actus -- but what else is new??
Be careful what you say about RPT, our record of RPT and public transport accidents (to ICAO definitions) is none too bright, statistically.
At any hour of the day or night, in US, there are around 6-7000 IFR aircraft in the air, and around 50,000 active flight plans. In Australia, how many?? Several hundred at peaks -- in about the same land area.
We have had quite a few RPT fatals over the years, don't forget how small Australian public transport aviation really is, statistically so small that a single B737 loss would catapult us into "third world" territory, as far as statistical aviation safety outcomes go.
Even the oft made claim that we have never had a fatal turbo-jet public transport accident is not correct.
And, as you must know, Ansett, "TAA" and Qantas have all had some very close goes, where lady luck was on our side.
Matthew 13:13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand
Tootle pip!!
The same old mantra, Leddie (as Dick). "Same land area..." Ballderdash! 90% of the Australian land mass is devoid of anything, let alone aeroplanes! A US ppruner over on Tech Log said he'd never done a VOR! Thousands of real-life non-radar NPAs are done here every year. The threats are different, but they are there.
I've given the data that shows you're speaking rubbish. Now YOU prove otherwise, or keep quiet.
I've given the data that shows you're speaking rubbish. Now YOU prove otherwise, or keep quiet.
All you have done is produced a link to one IATA annual report, big deal.
As I have so often said, you are entitled to your opinions, and you are entitled to be wrong.
Which, in my opinion, once again, you are, wrong.
Try and read what I have actually written, something quite different to what you would like me to have written, but didn't.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Anybody who wants a copy of the original "double the US" report, ask AOPA, it is their publication, or ask the Minister's Office.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At any hour of the day or night, in US, there are around 6-7000 IFR aircraft in the air.....
I just looked at the US on Plane Finder which included Canada and a bit of Central and South America. Total shown 526. I don't know where the other 5500 to 6500 are.
I just looked at the US on Plane Finder which included Canada and a bit of Central and South America. Total shown 526. I don't know where the other 5500 to 6500 are.
How about you try FAA, that would be ATC traffic figures, that would be a good start.
Tootle pip!!
Here's another for you, Luddie, in particular page 12. I wonder where my diggings will lead me to next? More evidence that Leddy is sprouting @#? 
http://www.icao.int/safety/documents...042014_web.pdf
http://www.icao.int/safety/documents...042014_web.pdf
Total shown 526. I don't know where the other 5500 to 6500 are.
Only joking, of course, I see Flight Radar is showing 8100 world-wide at the mo. Around 300 over the US and 300 over Australia....
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blogs,
I can only agree with your observations.
But we should not cavil over a missing few thousand flights or apparently compelling flight safety facts which seem to be similarly elusive.
After all, the mighty LED SLED has spoken and we should respect that.
And I guess that is a F-A-C-T.
Pathetic.
I can only agree with your observations.
But we should not cavil over a missing few thousand flights or apparently compelling flight safety facts which seem to be similarly elusive.
After all, the mighty LED SLED has spoken and we should respect that.
And I guess that is a F-A-C-T.
Pathetic.
But you and the Capt aren't seriously suggesting that there are around the same number of IFR aircraft in the air in Ausrtralia at any one time as there are in the USA?
That looks to be the case, such is the local self-delusion.
Does Plane Finder/Flight Radar rely on ADS-B?? Last time I looked, less than 10% of the airline fleet had 1090ES ADS-B, the figures for GA was a bit over 10%, a mix of UAT and 1090ES.
Bloggs and Actus, instead of continuing the rant against me, why don't you get a copy of the original NTSB verified report from AOPA or the DoIT, and do your own projections.
Around 300 over the US and 300 over Australia....
Why do we bother with all that records stuff from FAA, Eurocontrol, ASA etc, when we can get the roooly troooly facts so easily.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled,
Plane Finder is now showing around 5500 aircraft over the US but it is now the middle of the day. The last snapshot was around 0600 on the east coast. What I had a problem with was your "any hour of the day or night" statement
Plane Finder is now showing around 5500 aircraft over the US but it is now the middle of the day. The last snapshot was around 0600 on the east coast. What I had a problem with was your "any hour of the day or night" statement
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sled,
The only thing I would like to see is your figures on how you continually come to the conclusion the OZ GA accident rate is 3 times that of the USA.
Anything else you say is just obfuscation.
The only thing I would like to see is your figures on how you continually come to the conclusion the OZ GA accident rate is 3 times that of the USA.
Anything else you say is just obfuscation.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sled,
I am not going to do all the research for your contention but I have found many things including this:
"In 2005 the NTSB published a report examining the methodology used in the US to estimate activity data for general aviation and on-demand operations.
The report found that the survey methodology used to develop estimates of annual hours flown in these categories is likely to be inaccurate and
may not have provided a reliable basis for estimating accident rate trends in the US.
(National Transportation Safety Board, 2005).
Hence, a comparison of accident rates in Australia and the US based on hours flown may be misleading, and should be treated with some caution.
Nearly 90% of US accidents involved general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in
Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation (Part 91). Accidents in other categories were either infrequent or rare."
(ATSB TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION REPORT)
Aviation Research and Analysis Report
B2004/0321
Final
3 times a questionable rate in the US huh?
I am not going to do all the research for your contention but I have found many things including this:
"In 2005 the NTSB published a report examining the methodology used in the US to estimate activity data for general aviation and on-demand operations.
The report found that the survey methodology used to develop estimates of annual hours flown in these categories is likely to be inaccurate and
may not have provided a reliable basis for estimating accident rate trends in the US.
(National Transportation Safety Board, 2005).
Hence, a comparison of accident rates in Australia and the US based on hours flown may be misleading, and should be treated with some caution.
Nearly 90% of US accidents involved general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in
Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation (Part 91). Accidents in other categories were either infrequent or rare."
(ATSB TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION REPORT)
Aviation Research and Analysis Report
B2004/0321
Final
3 times a questionable rate in the US huh?
Nearly 90% of US accidents involved general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation (Part 91).
It's hardly surprising that the proportion of GA accidents compared with other categories in the USA is higher than in Australia. The USA is not killing GA off as quickly as in Australia.
This is so laughable that it could have been written by the ATSB:
Accidents in other categories were either infrequent or rare.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Balloon,
Well, I thought the other 'Lead' took the cake when it came to non-sequitor, seriously flawed thought processes overlaid with a handsome dose of nonsense.
Well, I think it has become a close race between the two of you for the gold medal in the 'say what you like, but make sure OZ is crap and do not worry about the facts' award.
Oh, and I almost forgot; it is always the regulator's fault...
I am tired of this.
Lead Sled; you do not appear able to produce anything other than rhetoric so let's leave it at that.
I can find numerous biblical quotations to describe fools but, for now, I will not call on any imaginary friends for support.
Hang on, I could just make it up and no-one will dare question me...
Well, I thought the other 'Lead' took the cake when it came to non-sequitor, seriously flawed thought processes overlaid with a handsome dose of nonsense.
Well, I think it has become a close race between the two of you for the gold medal in the 'say what you like, but make sure OZ is crap and do not worry about the facts' award.
Oh, and I almost forgot; it is always the regulator's fault...
I am tired of this.
Lead Sled; you do not appear able to produce anything other than rhetoric so let's leave it at that.
I can find numerous biblical quotations to describe fools but, for now, I will not call on any imaginary friends for support.
Hang on, I could just make it up and no-one will dare question me...
non-sequitor
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balloon,
QED? Yes, what has to be proved has been proved.
Lead Sled makes things up and then gets incensed when he is called to prove what he maintains.
He sprouts crap; Fullstop.
And by the way, my previous post was a quote from an ATSB report, not my interpretation or regurgitation of words.
Oh, I forgot, the ATSB is suspect when it comes to statistics as well. Right?
QED? Yes, what has to be proved has been proved.
Lead Sled makes things up and then gets incensed when he is called to prove what he maintains.
He sprouts crap; Fullstop.
And by the way, my previous post was a quote from an ATSB report, not my interpretation or regurgitation of words.
Oh, I forgot, the ATSB is suspect when it comes to statistics as well. Right?
I have enough first hand knowledge to be justifiably sceptical of every syllable produced by ATSB.
But let's try to chunk this up into little bits to see where we diverge. You posted this quote:
Do you consider that the content of that sentence has any relevance to a comparison of the accident and incident rates of GA in the USA and GA in Australia?
Given the context in which you posted that sentence, you appear to be suggesting that its content is relevant to that comparison. If you are making that suggestion, you are evidently very confused and, simply, wrong.
But let's try to chunk this up into little bits to see where we diverge. You posted this quote:
Nearly 90% of US accidents involved general aviation (Part 91) flights, while in Australia just under 70% of accidents were in general aviation (Part 91).
Given the context in which you posted that sentence, you appear to be suggesting that its content is relevant to that comparison. If you are making that suggestion, you are evidently very confused and, simply, wrong.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 11th Mar 2016 at 01:19.