Old Bar Ferris Wheel Incident

[Guest davidh10]

.. Where do you draw the line? Nev

A vexed question indeed. Like many things it isn't black or white. Used indiscriminately, it curbs freedoms, bit at the other end it imposes a huge public burden created by only part of the community.

 

I'm partially aware of the debate about bicycle helmets, but then I've lived through the introduction of seat belt legislation too. There's states in the US for which a helmet is still not compulsory for a motorbike.

 

Australia is trying to reduce smoking... the public cost of smoking is bigger than most people imagine, both from primary and secondary induction of cigarette smoke.

 

There are no easy answers.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Great article on this topic in the NY Post a couple of days ago: Hey they still let us drive.

 

"Imagine if cars hadn’t been around for a century, but instead were just invented today. Is there any way they’d be approved for individual use? It’s an era of bans on incandescent bulbs; if you suggested putting millions of internal-combustion engines out there, you’d get looks like you were Hitler proposing the Final Solution.

 

Even aside from pollution, the government wouldn’t allow the risks to safety.

 

“So you’re proposing that people speed around in tons of metal? You must mean only really smart, well-trained people?”

 

“No. Everyone. Even stupid people.”

 

“Won’t millions be killed?”

 

“Oh, no. Not that many. Just a little more than 40,000 a year.”

 

“And injuries?”

 

“Oh . . . millions.”

 

There’s no way that would get approved today.

 

Driving is basically a grandfathered freedom from back when people cared less about pollution and danger and valued progress and liberty over safety. They had different equations related to human life then: We could lose 10,000 men in a single battle in a war and call it a victory.

 

We’re talking foolhardy people who eventually sent men to the moon strapped to a giant rocket that had less computational power than it takes to calculate the trajectory of an Angry Bird. Their kids dangled from jungle gyms over pavement."

 

 

[turboplanner]

The RAAus attitude/charter of limited exposure to risk and the concept of "informed" participant is a real breath of fresh air, and something we must strive to protect.

I haven't heard of this, but in general terms you can't limit exposure in PL, the Plaintiffs set the financial targets and the Courts seem to be awarding fairly consistent scales of compensation.

 

You can't sue yourself of course.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The borders are getting a bit blurred here, regulations on helmets, cars, speed cameras etc are a different stream, based on government decisions, not Public Liability which revolves around someone's degree of responsibility in how they manage things.

 

Facthunter, re your post #519 which Ahlocks loves, the US has a completely different system to us, and in the early days it was possible to sue someone of you could show the court that if the product had been designed differently, the fatality couldn't occur - design with the benefit of hindsight, and there was a punitive element.

 

So if your fuel tank burst and you were incinerated, your heirs could hire an engineer to design a fuel tank in a different location and the decision might be $9 million compensation and $11 million punitive damages.

 

Ralph Nader became a millionaire, and some might remember the Corvair rear suspension, Ford Pinto fuel tanks and so on which cost manufacturers hundreds of millions.

 

A group went after General Motors over fires resulting from burst fuel tanks in collisions, which was a bad mistake because GM were more than a little upset after their Corvair program had been killed.

 

One collision was caught on film showing a car colliding with the side of the blazer and a huge fire erupting, and this was going to be the positive proof and paydirt for the lawyers involved, but what they didn't count on was the massive forensic team hired by GM.

 

Let's say the accident had occurred in California, the story went something like, they traced the car to a used car dealer in Phoenix Arizona who sold it to a mechanic who had bought on behalf of a consulting agency who'd paid for it with funds traceable by bank draft to one of the plaintiffs, and found the car in Yuma Arizona with some reinforcing in the front.

 

Several months later they found the Chevy Blazer in a wreckers yard in Des Moines Iowa, with the explosive igniter bodies still welded into the tank, visual evidence of grinding welds away at the seams, and metallurgical tests indicating around 10% of the standard tank strength each side of the split.

 

Then they backtracked the Chevy's life day by day and found the transporter who moved it from California, who hired him, the igniter supplier etc etc, got criminal convictions and I think finished up getting about $380 million from the group.

 

That sort of ended that era.

 

Our system in Australia is much fairer and based on a real world loss of amenity situation.

 

There are still plenty of people conducting bull riding, motor racing, flying etc, without exposing themselves to claims.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Facthunter, re your post #519 which Ahlocks loves,

Well, Nev is a likable sort of bloke.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Well, Nev is a likable sort of bloke.

I agree, he certainly looks very likeable.

 

Alan.

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

It's only the post he says he likes. You don't have to like me.

 

Incidently, I don't have to find all the facts myrself, and I certainly do not have them all. Often it's only a matter of turning the thrust of the conversation, and well intentioned people will all work towards getting the facts out.

 

The reason I chose that "title" is that it does promote a view that I hold strongly, that we don't need confusion in flying, so where possible we should get our information correct . Often your life depends on it, and your skills improve too. Nev

 

 

[Guernsey]

Well I like you Nev for what you contribute to this site.

 

Thanks,

 

Alan.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Hey Nev, I like your #528 too..

 

P.S. You might need to get some public likability insurance if this keeps happening.

 

 

[pudestcon]

Come on Nev, we all like you and now you have to select your avatar - just do it!!

 

Pud

 

 

[facthunter]

That's funny 'locks. ( public likability insurance) Ha ha . This subject is on another thread and there was a nice dog, so , could I go to the dog(s) for the time being at least for now. Thanx Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hey you lot ... back on topic ... from the one most guilty.

 

 

[av8vfr]

Back on topic... an email from Morgan Aeroworks:

 

Quote:

 

RAA has made a BIG stuff up , 12 months work to get approval, only now we find they told us the WRONG standard to comply with

 

also COA 95-55 1.6 was cancled on the 6 of april, and did NOT tell anyone, this has effected a lot of aircraft, and many that dont know what to do. RAA is only weeding info out of us, and steve bell has an offical warning to back off from us, no one is helping us, only trying to hang us over the ferris wheel accident, that we or the piolt was not to blame. RAA wont let me instruct, no flying school.

 

So now we need to comply to a new standard ATSM which is LSA which will require the SAME as a CASA workshop and control.

 

Also only here say by someone from CASA that a RAA aircraft used in a flying school will have to be maintained by a LAME or the aircraft manufacture.

 

End Quote

 

It was forwarded to me and no changes made. No comment from me. For information only.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Some how I think Gary is going to end up a substantial victim in all this unfortunate business. Clearly there are some issues he needs to fix with assembly and others pointed out in the ATSB prelim report, but this unfortunate accident has opened a can of worms. Certainly there was no defect in the aircraft from what has been shown in the ATSB prelim report that contributed to the accident.

 

I certainly support the comment in the Morgan Aeroworks email:

 

trying to hang us over the ferris wheel accident, that we or the piolt was not to blame.

I happen to hold the view that even though the go around was mismanaged (and that is a separate issue), the Ferris Wheel should not have been where it was obstructing the splay and even though the go around was mismanaged, in my view the aircraft would have been safe if the Ferris Wheel was not there.

We are RAA and we should come together on this issue to support rectifying any errors administrative or not. I am reasonably certain that Gary would rectify any technical issues that need rectifying, we need to get behind him to help him do just that, not standby and watch an Australian Manufacturer be taken to the cleaners over issues that go deep.

 

 

[David Isaac]

This is what we are supposed to do as RAA.

 

Mission

 

To foster, encourage and develop safe Recreational Aviation in Australia with minimum bureaucracy* and minimum cost.

 

*My added Note: 'bureaucracy' implying excessive and/or unimaginative official routines. Valid routines to collect data that provide information for purposes such as safety improvement are OK.

 

Vision

 

• To be recognised as a leader in the development, promotion and administration of sport and recreational aviation in Australia.

 

• In an alliance — both strategic and operational — with other aviation associations where resources, experience, technologies and skills are shared, with each organisation's development potential being protected and enhanced, so that Australian aviation is revived and encouraged and its future assured.

 

Values

 

These core values are those beliefs which RA-Aus members would generally hold in common, and dear to our hearts.

 

• Regulation specific to recreational aircraft must continue to exist which shall allow RA-Aus members to design and/or build and fly their own aircraft at their own risk and without undue supervision of the design/build process, but within the limits of regulatory categories. Such a concept nurtures knowledge, innovation and enterprise — all qualities which are important in Australia's future.

 

• Any appropriately qualified person should, with due care in observance of the flight rules, be able to fly recreational aircraft with minimum regulation.

 

• Recreational flying shall be affordable and accessible to the maximum number of Australians.

 

• The continued development of self-administration of our own affairs.

 

Objectives

 

1. To foster, encourage and continually improve the safe and responsible flight activities of powered sport and recreational aircraft within an easily-accessible and low-cost environment.

 

2. To revive, encourage and promote interest in Australian Recreational Aviation by encouraging participation in recreational flying.

 

3. To foster, encourage and continually improve the amateur aircraft construction in Australia of single-place and two-place recreational aircraft for educational, recreational and research purposes while promoting and maintaining a regulatory framework in which to do so.

 

4. To foster and maintain the concept of safe owner maintenance of single-place and two-place powered recreational aircraft.

 

5. To foster and encourage the formation and growth of Recreational Aviation clubs to provide the social impetus for the development of recreational aviation pilots and the nurture and care of inexperienced pilots.

 

6. To maintain self administration of recreational aviation operations with the complete confidence of the Australian public as the delegated administrative authority for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

 

7. To act as an information resource for counsel to organisations or individuals whose decisions may affect recreational aviation activities and our rights.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Well said David

 

 

[David Isaac]

Also only here say by someone from CASA that a RAA aircraft used in a flying school will have to be maintained by a LAME or the aircraft manufacture.

Attention Folks: this is a comment over which we should show significant concern as RAA pilots. On what cost benefit analysis is this suggestion based? This would be another whole level of bureaucracy and cost that I cannot see can be justified.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

What a freaking mess. what drugs are these clowns on?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd be a bit cautious about taking hangar talk seriously just yet

 

 

[David Isaac]

I'd be a bit cautious about taking hangar talk seriously just yet

I have been of the view for some years now that CASA were trying to rid itself of involvement in light aircraft including GA. I had thought that CASA wanted to dump all light aircraft into organisations such as RA Aus, SAAA and the GFA because the GFA and SAAA models has been so successful (they even do aerobatics). That would make sense as to why CASA stated last year that the main thing RA Aus needed to concentrate on was governance. One couldn’t be blamed for perhaps thinking that CASA want to wash their hands of the administration of light aircraft and concentrate on the aluminium buses.So with that thinking in mind it is a little surprising that this comment comes in Gary’s email as an unverified comment from a CASA source.

 

Whilst this may have its basis in ‘hangar talk’ this is of sufficient importance as to have us sit up and take note. Maybe it needs all of us to spread an awareness of this potential and have us ALL lobby our RA Aus representative (Board Members) and make it known in no uncertain terms, that we do NOT need this level of interference. Maybe it was leaked as a scare mongering campaign to make sure we get our governance issues in order … who knows … but to ignore it may be something we do at our peril.

 

We need to escalate awareness to the potential CASA involvement and that will either flush out their intentions or shut it down. We are 10,000 members strong and we DO have significant lobbying power.

 

So get on the phone folks and ask the questions of your RA Aus representatives and tell them that we will not tolerate this level of draconian interference and that we are capable of self-governance. Even though this accident has revealed some issues, we as RA Aus are capable of getting our ‘house in order’ as we collectively get behind our organisation and take care not to hang anyone out to dry.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Better still, if it worries you get on the phone to the Screaming Skull his very self!

 

 

[winsor68]

Personally... I think we can get on the phone and scream all we want... my feeling is that we need to be realistic here and accept that Ra-Aus operations dropped the ball big time... and that they have some work to do in order to prove they can be trusted with it for the future...

 

 

[Guernsey]

About a week ago I sent a personal uplifting email to show my support to Gary Morgan and his family, I am sure he would appreciate our support at this time.

 

Alan.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Personally... I think we can get on the phone and scream all we want... my feeling is that we need to be realistic here and accept that Ra-Aus operations dropped the ball big time... and that they have some work to do in order to prove they can be trusted with it for the future...

Don,In my opinion a lot of balls have been dropped in terms of responsibility in a number of areas. The accident was just the catalyst that opened the can and exposed some of the shortfalls. Not too many 'Holy Men' left after this is all settled, including pilots, operators, governing bodies, festival organisers, Councils and risk assessors.

We all need to acknowledge where the mistakes were made, fix up the issues and collectively move forward all the wiser for the experience. Unfortunately there may well be some casualties that will suffer greater consequences as a result of the accident that in fact may prove to be non causal factors in the accident.

 

The point is, we need to pull together in this as the RAA community, help each other through this including RA Aus, the pilot and the manufacturer and be a part of the solution to safer operations and skies.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's important not to OVERREACT. Some situations provide an opportunity for people with an agenda to put it into place. As an example, John Howards disarming of the legally armed people of Australia after a mentally disturbed individual killed a substantial number of persons at Port Arthur Tasmania.

 

I support people NOT having a great arsenal of weapons out there, but , DON'T take an opportunity to implement something opportunisticly. It's either a good idea ( per se) or it is not.

 

An incident occurred at Old Bar that has myriad consequences. Which will work ts way out with the passage of time. Gary Morgan's aeroplane became involved in an attention grabbing collision with a Ferris Wheel in the boundariesy of the aerodrome.

 

A side issue ( having NOTHING at all to do with the incident ) is whether the construction of some of these aircraft has to be looked at from a certification standpoint. At this juncture this is a total disconnect from what caused all the attention.

 

Getting caught in the net is not a good enough reason for lowering the boom on an individual and his enterprise, on its own..

 

If there is a problem of this magnitude, it should have surfaced of it's own accord, in it's own time as a separate issue, without all the hype. Nev