[Peetwo]

Update 19/01/18:

HVH: “By comparing accident and occurrence data across aviation operations types, the ATSB is able to identify emerging trends, further areas for research and take steps to recommend pre-emptive safety actions,”

Is that like the ATSB closing safety loops on serious safety issues that having been identified, in some cases nearly 2 decades ago, & despite political and aviation safety bureaucratic rhetoric, are yet to be effectively risk mitigated...

Examples from the same decade refer here: Closing the safety loop - Coroners, ATSB & CASA

And most recently and still live... : 
FRMS/SMS a lip service exercise - Part VII & FAA IASA audit, FRMS & an 'inconvenient ditching'?

Fast forwarding again, to 30 June 2013 the following are quotes from a AIPA Parliamentary Brief in support of the NX proposal to disallow CAO 48.1: https://www.aipa.org.au/sites/default/fi...3a_002.pdf

---

From pg 2 of the brief:

In summary, the Instrument is a step in the right direction but is unfinished business. There are serious concerns about the application or otherwise of the body of fatigue science and research and the preservation or extension of existing provisions already challenged by parts of the industry as unsafe.

CASA has an abysmal record of regulatory oversight of fatigue management, even without the pressure of trying to get some serious traction on the Regulatory Reform programs that have diverted them for the last 17 or so years. Parts of the industry believe that CASA has seriously underestimated the resources required to implement these new rules and that there will be an inevitable trade-off in surveillance activities of flight operations.

If not disallowed now, this legislation will continue with no incentive for improvement unless and until the inherent risk crystallises into an undesirable outcome. That is not a possibility that this Parliament should allow to persist.

From Annabel Hepworth in the Oz today:

---

ATSB pushes for more details about air safety events



General aviation is about 20 times more likely to experience a fatal accident than commercial operations.


The Australian12:00AM January 19, 2018


ANNABEL HEPWORTH
Aviation Editor Sydney
@HepworthAnnabel

The nation’s air crash investigator is hoping for better reporting of incidents after new data showed how much more likely accidents are for recreational flyers and ­general aviation than commercial air transport.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood said that better reporting “enables the industry, pilots and the regulator to learn from trends seen in more minor safety occurrences to help avoid more serious accidents”.

An ATSB report released this week shows that, based on hours flown, general aviation operations are 10 times more likely to have an accident than commercial air transport, and recreational aircraft are about twice as likely to experience an accident than general aviation.

On hours flown, general aviation is about 20 times more likely to experience a fatal accident than commercial operations, and fatal accidents among recreat­ional ­flyers are almost 40 times more ­likely than with air transport.

The ATSB notes in the report that while there has been a rise in the reporting of accidents and ­incidents, the “limited” detail for most events, particularly for recreational flyers, “remains a ­challenge for the industry and ATSB”.

The bureau also pointed to “the need for ­improvements” to the ­reporting rates for some areas of general aviation.

In response to inquiries by The Australian, Mr Hood said the ATSB had found that fewer incidents and “non-accidents” had been reported to the body by the general and recreational aviation sectors of the industry.



“For some operation types, such as mustering for example, nearly every occurrence being ­reported is an accident — some 80 per cent of mustering occurrences get reported as accidents. This data suggests that there may be other incidents and serious ­incidents that are not being reported to us,” Mr Hood said.

“When an accident and incident report comes from external parties such as the police, air ­traffic control or other pilots, there is often a lack of detail, namely around what and why it occurred.”

Mr Hood said better reporting directly to the ATSB would allow data to be used to pinpoint risks for certain operations, aircraft and locations. “This enables the industry, ­pilots and the regulator to learn from trends seen in more minor safety occurrences to help avoid more serious accidents.”

However, he said he was pleased with work done by organisations such as the Aerial Appli­cation Association of Australia, Recreational Aviation Australia and the Sport Aircraft Association to actively promote reporting to the body.

Recreational Aviation Australia chairman Michael Monck said there had been concerns among aviators in the past that “if you ever told the regulator something, chances are you will be punished”, but there had been a big push in recent years to ­encourage disclosure.

“That’s something that certainly scared off aviators in the past from reporting. That is changing,” Mr Monck said.

---

MTF...P2