Hi Gary,

You said:

"If you are particularly observant, you will note that neither Wombat nor I, 
have mentioned the GFA in this context. Legally they do not have a role. In 
practice they are generally requested to supply expert advice to the 
Investigating Authority. Apart from anything else, this keeps the GFA "in the 
loop" ".

I had hoped Wombat might have commented on an earlier e-mail of mine on this 
thread.

I have had concerns with the GFA being involved in investigations, it being 
both a regulator/standard setter and a quasi fraternal association.
Conflict of interest? Position to protect? That is why I asked.

For myself I would hope that the tenor of any involvement by the GFA would be 
covered by the media euphemism  ".........police are being assisted in their 
enquiries" and no higher.

Chris

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: gstev...@bigpond.com 
  To: wom...@netspeed.com.au ; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in 
Australia. 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 11:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Site/accident


  Hi Mike, Mike Borgelt in particular, and All,

  Very nicely put.

  I note in particular your comment "...and the amount of knowledge gained from 
NZ investigations is not significantly higher than here." I suspect that you 
could widen "NZ" to "Worldwide".

  At the risk of seeming outrageous, let me say that to the ATSB and its 
previous incarnations, investigating glider accidents is, within the bigger 
picture of accident investigation, "just plain boring".

  How so? Let me explain.

  Unless I am missing something, there are basically only two factors to any 
gliding accident - mechanical failure, or pilot error( or incapacity). In an 
ultimate analysis, everything can be reduced to these two fundamentals. [There 
is no doubt that these fundamentals also apply to any accident scenario where 
human beings are involved.]

  Some pundit will no doubt be able to quote the "exact" figures for gliding, 
but in gliding accidents MUCH less than 10% of accidents can be attributed to 
mechanical failure. I will leave it to you to work out what the remainder is 
allotted to! ....... However, do not jump to conclusions. In (unfortunately far 
too many cases), WHAT happened is quite easy to determine. WHY it happened 
cannot be determined at all! Nevertheless the fundamental premise  that I have 
posited above must apply. 

  Gliders, in comparison to say modern airliners are relatively simple machines 
- just ask the boys in South Africa who developed the JS1.They are reputed to 
have put in over 70,000 total hours to get to official Type Approval! 

  So, in a few instances of  gliding accidents there is a mechanical problem. 
As gliders are such simple machines, any mechanical failure should be 
relatively easy to determine. This does not require the input of the ATSB. As 
Wombat has said, the ATSB generally leaves it to either one of the other two 
entities who CAN legally investigate - the State Police, or the State Coroner.

  If you are particularly observant, you will note that neither Wombat nor I, 
have mentioned the GFA in this context. Legally they do not have a role. In 
practice they are generally requested to supply expert advice to the 
Investigating Authority. Apart from anything else, this keeps the GFA "in the 
loop".

  [It is a digression, but it would seem in fact that these two bodies 
Police/Coroner co-operate. Maybe some legal eagle might be able to explain just 
what are the current arrangements, which may possibly vary from State to State. 
I posit that in theory each one of the 3 entities is able to carry out an 
independent investigation if it so chooses?]

  So much for mechanical failures. 

  What about Pilot Error?

  Well pilots have been crashing, and in many cases dying, since man took to 
the air. Every possible means of crashing has been explored from that time 
until now. I suspect that all the possibilities for human error were exhausted 
long ago: Hence the lack of ATSB interest. 

  As a result of these experiences the GFA  produced a Manual of Standard 
Procedures. You are of course perfectly free to ignore the accumulated wisdom 
of ages, as set out in this document and taught by every accredited instructor, 
but you do so at your peril.

  Regards,
  Gary







  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Mike Cleaver 
    To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
    Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:40 PM
    Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Site/accident


    John and others

    The ATSB has a system for classifying accidents and incidents - see on 
their web site http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/investigation-procedures.aspx 
and 
    http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/investigation-procedures.aspx#fn2 
    - the latter identifies what the various levels of investigation involve in 
terms of ATSB resources.

    Sport and recreational aviation accidents - even fatal ones - are almost 
never accorded a classification higher than 4, which means that after the 
recording of various factual information, the investigation is either carried 
out with one or two ATSB investigators or may be referred to another agency. In 
the case of a fatality this is often the police force in the State or Territory 
where the accident occurred - either for potential crime investigation or more 
likely for the Coroner to investigate. The Police/Coroner will usually seek the 
assistance of the GFA in the case of a gliding accident, but the GFA generally 
regards itself as under-resourced to carry out aviation accident 
investigations, as no funding is provided from Government sources to train and 
equip investigators.In any event the funding provided by Government to the ATSB 
is such that most accidents are not investigated in any level of detail, unless 
they involve passenger transport operations in large or medium capacity 
aircraft. The days when ATSB investigated sport aviation accidents to any 
greater extent than this ended over 20 years ago, and are not likely to return. 

    While gliding fatalities are investigated by TAIC in New Zealand, that is 
not the case here, and the amount of knowledge gained from NZ investigations is 
not significantly higher than here.

    A further factor that militates against the GFA conducting and publishing 
accident reports is the fact that, unlike Government agencies, the investigator 
may be held personally liable for the way findings are reported, and challenged 
by relatives of the deceased or others who have suffered personal or property 
loss, or by survivors of the event who may claim some degree of negligence 
(read financial compensation for some assumed fault by the GFA or its members) 
or defamation as a consequence of the reporting.
    This has the potential to affect all of us, whereas an ATSB investigation 
is rarely handled this way. Note that this is a fact in spite of the 
acknowledged purpose of accident investigations being to prevent recurrences 
and identify procedures or training that may assist in this goal: accident 
investigators do not lay blame for occurrences (and sometimes it is hard to 
read into their reports any reference to even obvious breaches of the law or 
safe operating procedures).

    This is why we have to wait so long for a Coroner to produce a report 
before we can make changes to the system, especially where training or 
procedure changes are involved, or airworthiness actions.

    Wombat


    On 25/04/2012 12:09 PM, john.mcfarlane wrote: 
      I would have thought that this is a mandated reportable incident via the 
Fed Gov body delegated with that authority - ATSB.


      Will there be a formal report from the ATSB?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: gstev...@bigpond.com
      Sent: Monday, 23 April 2012 4:17
      To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>
      Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Site/accident


      Re accident prevention, in this instance we will have to wait on the 
Coroner's report, which I would not expect any time soon. It may be able to 
pinpoint a problem, and if so we - that is the collective we - can then act. 
However I am not holding my breath on this one.


      Regards,

      Gary




_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Aus-soaring mailing list
    Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
    To check or change subscription details, visit:
    http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Aus-soaring mailing list
  Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
  To check or change subscription details, visit:
  http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to