Old Bar Ferris Wheel Incident

[David Isaac]

........ given that no one can guarantee he couldn't have climbed out through the trees........

In relation to the trees Tubz, on rechecking site videos and Google street scape you can see the pilot actually had a clear unobstructed path beyond the Ferris wheel which is not what I had initially believed from my own knowledge of the site. But it is clear in my mind now after looking into it that Paul would have made it through if the Ferris wheel had not been there. It acted as a big fly trap in the splay.

[rankamateur]

It acted as a big fly trap in the splay.

Just like a dirty big spiders web?

 

 

[68volksy]

Looks like there might be some culpability falling each and every direction with this one. The difference an ATSB investigation makes hey? Left to the media and/or RA-Aus it would have been put down to "The dangers of low flying" or some such simple thing and we'd all have forgotten about it...

 

The Council will be punished for the ferris wheel placement, the manufacturer could get punished for the aircraft, the flying school could get punished for the standard of training, the pilot could get punished for poor decision making. What are the odds that RA-Aus is in line for any form of punishment for their part in the aircraft manufactire, pilot training and pilot standards? More to the point what could this punishment entail? If Council's going to get a roughing up due to their placement of the ferris wheel then RA-Aus should get a roughing up for their placement of the aircraft/pilot in the situation shouldn't it? Can they even be held responsible in this situation?

 

 

[Guest cficare]

the 'roughing up' will take the form of higher KPI's (key performance indicators) being required by CASA of RAA, requiring the recruitment (at a significant cost) of competent operational staff to conduct regular, on-going surveillence of all aspects of RAA's charter.

 

All of which will result in significantly increased fees from members.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Looks like there might be some culpability falling each and every direction with this one.

I think this is without doubt going to be a very interesting and unfortunately traumatic dust up for all parties involved.If I had been the pilot and it was my aircraft (hypothetically of course) I think I would be looking for the recovery of the cost of repair / replacement of my aircraft from the Ferris Wheel operator and also join the Festival organizers in my claim and the organisation that did the risk assessment for Ferris wheel placement (as alleged by the ATSB) in my action. Why ... because they caused a 10 metre obstruction in the required 5% slope and splay of the airfield; AND the threshold was not displaced to account for the obstruction; AND no warning was given of the obstruction.

 

My justification would potentially be that I should have a reasonable expectation to be able to climb out within the splay (which I was), without hitting any obstruction, even after my late go around.

 

It would be an interesting argument. EDIT: Especially as the pilot has a legal obligation to conduct the flight with safety and how much of that obligation rests on the pilot in terms of making inquiries.

 

The difference an ATSB investigation makes hey? Left to the media and/or RA-Aus it would have been put down to "The dangers of low flying" or some such simple thing and we'd all have forgotten about it...

Some how I think there is a lot of stuff going on in the background Volksy in RAA and I believe they may be conducting their own investigation. No one at this stage from RAA has made any public criticisms about this incident.As for any allegation of low flying ... well of course he was ... he was taking off wasn't he ... and from my estimation he appears to have been within the splay dimensions that are there for that very purpose as a risk mitigation for just such a very late go around incident ... hello ... that is why the CASA ALA guidelines are produced ... to minimise risk. So why would someone increase the risk by placing the Ferris Wheel within the splay? It is about time that people and organisations understand why splays are provisioned.

 

......... If Council's going to get a roughing up due to their placement of the Ferris wheel then RA-Aus should get a roughing up for their placement of the aircraft/pilot in the situation shouldn't it? Can they even be held responsible in this situation?

I think that if any culpability is established as to Ferris Wheel placement (pure speculation on my part) then there would be perhaps no liability on the part of the pilot, but hey, I am no lawyer and my opinion means nothing in the scale of things. But if I were the pilot I would be aggressively pursuing a claim against the Ferris Wheel placement.Of course these are just my opinions and have no commercial or legal value at all, and no one should rely on any of my opinions.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Well said David, but, in saying that, I'm not exonerating the pilot totally.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think that aspect of it should be elaborated on at this stage. The placement of the wheel and runway markings and such "physical" things can be , because they are definable and rules exist relating to that. It was an aviation "event" and the aviation side of it was compromised.

 

Pilots are responsible for certain things but are also able to expect certain "normal' rules will apply.

 

If you think of this situation as a "workplace", responsibilities and expectations fall into place better.

 

Civil courts often express considerable ignorance of matters aeronautical. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Further to Nev's point and putting my opinion on legal issues aside,

 

An inescapable fact is that tree pollarding had taken place in the Southern Splay area and that can be seen in Google 'Streetscape', it is also confirmed in the ATSB preliminary report where it states:

 

The local council reported that the airstrip has never been formally surveyed for obstructions. However, a number of trees to the south of the airstrip that were under the approach path and to the south-eastern side of the airstrip exhibited evidence of pollarding to ensure that they did not pose a hazard to aircraft operations.

Given this pollarding took place presumably to mitigate aircraft collision risk, why would you then place an obstruction 10 metres vertically (by my estimate) into the splay area?What is worse is that the ATSB preliminary report stated that a risk assessment was carried out in 2008 and quoting from the ATSB preliminary report:

 

In 2008, after an external risk assessment that was carried out on behalf of the festival organising committee, the ferris wheel was relocated to the east, away from the centreline.

Couple this risk assessment with the evidence of the pollarding and the obvious existence of the airfield and assuming (on my part) the risk assessment was carried out because of the airfield, it is unfathomable as to how such an obstruction could have been approved in that location. To do so was to potentially compromise an aviation "event" to use Nev's words; which indeed it did that day at the festival.

 

 

[Guest cficare]

moving the ferris wheel from the extended centreline off to one side...reduces the risks.

 

..whether the person/organisation that conducted the risk assessment was (apparently) aware of the aviation requirements is certain

 

 

[David Isaac]

moving the ferris wheel from the extended centreline off to one side...reduces the risks....

Hi CFI,

 

You would normally assume that, but that depends how far away from the threshold it was on the centre line, because the further away the higher the splay base on a 5% slope.

 

One factor not obvious to those who don't know Old Bar is that the elevation of the ground South of the strip drops away, so that further South the lower the ground elevation as well.

 

We assume moving it from the centre line reduced the risk and in all likely hood it may have, but we just don't know how far from the threshold it was when it was formerly on the centre line.

 

 

[turboplanner]

A breathtaking turn of events!

 

 

[David Isaac]

To give some idea of height and distance required to remain clear of the 5% slope and splay:

 

Assume the elevation of the airstrip and ground to the South are the same.

 

Assume the Ferris Wheel gross height is 20 metres.

 

The splay starts at airstrip elevation at the threshold.

 

At 100 metres out, the base of the splay is 5 metres above strip elevation and 5 metres to each side

 

At 200 metres out, the base of the splay is 10 metres above the strip elevation and 10 metres to each side

 

At 400 metres out, the base of the splay is 20 metres above the strip elevation and 20 metres to each side

 

It can be seen that on level ground the Ferris Wheel would need to be 400 metres out from the airstrip alignment and threshold to NOT be classed as an obstruction.

 

The splay tapers out from both sides of the extremities of the flyover (transitional) areas from the threshold at the same 5% measurement.

 

It can be assumed that aircraft can end up anywhere within the splay in certain circumstances where climb performance may be compromised.

 

The splay area must be preserved for 900 metres past the threshold which in the case of Old Bar is nearly twice the length of the strip.

 

This is ALL about reducing risk and why we should take splay clearances seriously.

 

 

[68volksy]

Reflecting back on the discussion of ALA's and the requirements for their use it would seem that the ferris wheel being inside the splay of the "normal" strip doesn't really seem to have any bearing does it (I know I mentioned it but i'm working through the process)? If it was there then the ALA operator should have displaced the threshold or shut down the strip. Any pilot using the strip is then to seek permission from the ALA operator. It doesn't appear this permission was given?

 

So i'm thinking Council might be clear and be looking more at the ALA operator and their communications. Council would probably have had a responsibility to communicate with the ALA operator but I suppose we'll have to wait until the investigation is complete to see if this was done. Might not be a positive thing for the small group of guys keeping that strip going.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Read my post #441 Volksy, I think that covers your questions.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

wouldn't it be interesting if this event leads to the closing of a lot of public use airfields surrounded by trees?

 

 

[Guest cficare]

what?...like Canberra??

 

 

[turboplanner]

wouldn't it be interesting if this event leads to the closing of a lot of public use airfields surrounded by trees?

If you're suggesting thousands of airstrips are overgrown with trees inside the splays that's being a bit fanciful. ALA requirements aren't rocket science.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...Given this pollarding took place presumably to mitigate aircraft collision risk, why would you then place an obstruction 10 metres vertically (by my estimate) into the splay area?

...

Could be that they were separate and independent actions, even possibly by differing organisations. There's a group of volunteers who maintain the airstrip at their own cost and effort (www-pprune-org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/324416-old-bar-heritage-airstrip.html), so the pollarding may not have been performed under Council auspices. It is this group, from whom you seek permission to fly in. A purported member gives his mobile number in the thread and indicates that although the RAAF have a "standing invitation", they always obtain permission for each visit.

The "Old Bar Beach Festival" seems to have its own web site and gives no details of the ALA that would be needed by pilots, but this seems to be the source of the "general invitation to attend".

 

There looks to be several organisations, each with their own finger in the pie.

 

* I've substituted "-" for "." in the domain name of the link to prevent it being an actual link. Easy to alter if you want to visit the plum.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

If you're suggesting thousands of airstrips are overgrown with trees inside the splays that's being a bit fanciful. ALA requirements aren't rocket science.

Not really.

If you look up YYWG you will notice a runway marked as "ULTRALIGHT OPS". That is 05/23 and would be Certified along with the rest of the aerodrome if it weren't for one tree off to one side on the approach to 05, which protrudes into the transitional surface. The farmer won't remove it because it provides shade for the sheep, so the runway isn't certified and thus only shown with no detail on the AIP details. It has been surveyed. That is the only impediment to certifying that runway.

 

With the wind is from the wrong direction, you cop mechanical turbulence from the tree on late final. Everyone who flys here knows, and expects it.

 

There must be hundreds of private ALAs that don't comply. It's up to the PIC to decide whether to use non-conforming ALAs, after getting a briefing from the operator.

 

 

[ossie]

the old 'landing on a bush strip that goes pear shape'.....followed by a bunch of bush lawyers/expert's commentary...!!

 

ever wonder why ALA's are only written up in CAAPs ??

 

Those suggesting a 'duty of care' exists against the airport owners/operator when permission was not sort, and, a proper evaluation of the airfield was not conducted by the PIC in accordance with his license privileges, are drawing a long bow in my opinion....

 

 

[Litespeed]

Duty of care cuts many ways and even if official permission was not sought and granted that does not in any way negate the duty of care in this incident.

 

We must remember this was

 

a public event

 

the public were put at significant risk

 

the pilots where put at significant risk

 

By a having fair and aircraft fly in at the same event and advertising it- it is implied that the event is safe and suitable for the attendance of the public and for aircraft operations to attend the fly in. This implied permission for aircraft operations and that as such the airfield is safe for. In the eyes of the public and courts this is the big issue.

 

Irrespective of permission sought for individual flights to arrive- overall permission has been provided by advertising of the event, the opening of the airfield on the day and the running of the fly-in with the fair.

 

If it was just a pilot, mate and aircraft involved then this would be different. But it was a public open event- different rules apply. By providing a Fly-in on the day, the aircraft and passengers also become part of the public who have been invited. They are also owed a duty of care, just as if they arrived by car or horse.

 

It all comes down to implied permission and implied safety for operations due to the nature of the event.

 

Just as it is implied that the roads into the event, the rides on the day and any electrical used is safe for use.

 

This area of law is longstanding and even goes to issues like providing a trap for burgulars. Just because no permission has been given to enter your property does not mean a inherently dangerous situation is Ok. Duty of care still exists.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Duty of care cuts many ways and even if official permission was not sought and granted that does not in any way negate the duty of care in this incident.We must remember this was

 

a public event

 

the public were put at significant risk

 

the pilots where put at significant risk

 

By a having fair and aircraft fly in at the same event and advertising it- it is implied that the event is safe and suitable for the attendance of the public and for aircraft operations to attend the fly in. This implied permission for aircraft operations and that as such the airfield is safe for. In the eyes of the public and courts this is the big issue.

 

Irrespective of permission sought for individual flights to arrive- overall permission has been provided by advertising of the event, the opening of the airfield on the day and the running of the fly-in with the fair.

 

If it was just a pilot, mate and aircraft involved then this would be different. But it was a public open event- different rules apply. By providing a Fly-in on the day, the aircraft and passengers also become part of the public who have been invited. They are also owed a duty of care, just as if they arrived by car or horse.

 

It all comes down to implied permission and implied safety for operations due to the nature of the event.

 

Just as it is implied that the roads into the event, the rides on the day and any electrical used is safe for use.

 

This area of law is longstanding and even goes to issues like providing a trap for burgulars. Just because no permission has been given to enter your property does not mean a inherently dangerous situation is Ok. Duty of care still exists.

I think you're pretty much right on Litespeed.

 

We lost a case when a piece of clay flew up and hit a child's eye. The child had been sitting on the father's shoulders and he was close to the fence. We argued that he should have known that motor racing was dangerous, he argued that we had a duty of care to warn him, and the meeting had been advertised as a family event. So we made sure every track around Australia put "motor racing is dangerous" on every programme.

 

Then there was an accident where a car went through the catch fence and injured someone, and they went to hospital and got better, then some time later decided to sue us.

 

They admitted that they'd seen "motor racing is dangerous" signs, so hadn't thought of suing us, but someone later had suggested they get advice from a PL lawyer who decided the promoter had been negligent, and for some reason the case centred around the fact that he hadn't told them they had the right to sue, so we had to get everyone to change the message to "Motor racing is dangerous, but where the promotor has been negligent you have the right to recourse" (or something like that).

 

So all the people who organised the event/placed the ferris wheel there etc would be in much the same boat I would think.

 

 

[pudestcon]

So all the people who organised the event/placed the ferris wheel there etc would be in much the same boat I would think.

And that's why I'd be willing to bet that at the next local council meeting there will be calls to not run such events again and close the airfield.

 

Pud

 

 

[turboplanner]

And that's why I'd be willing to bet that at the next local council meeting there will be calls to not run such events again and close the airfield. Pud

The local Council almost certainly will be up to speed with public liability which is why they sand the thousands of cracks in the footpaths and put out red cone markers when they've got better things to do like stay out of the rain.

 

So what I'd expect them to do is think about hiring something else other than a Ferris Wheel.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Duty of care cuts many ways and even if official permission was not sought and granted that does not in any way negate the duty of care in this incident.

I agree.

 

By a having fair and aircraft fly in at the same event and advertising it- it is implied that the event is safe and suitable for the attendance of the public and for aircraft operations to attend the fly in. This implied permission for aircraft operations and that as such the airfield is safe for. In the eyes of the public and courts this is the big issue.

Not necessarily.

All airshows are dangerous. The promoters don't usually say so in their promotional material or advertising, but it is usual to have signs at the entrance and ticket conditions that basically say "airsows are dangerous. if you enter, you accept the risk that you may die or be seriously injured and will indemnify the promoters, agents, servants... yada yada yada."

 

Avalon airshow does this. Temora Aviation Museum does this. I'll bet the Reno Air Race event had caveats along those lines too.

 

That said, no amount of caveats or entry conditions can prevent litigation or indeed liability for negligence. While many conditions seek to avoid liability for negligence, that just stops some people from trying, but does not avoid liability.

 

Irrespective of permission sought for individual flights to arrive- overall permission has been provided by advertising of the event, the opening of the airfield on the day and the running of the fly-in with the fair.

but does not relieve the PIC of the responsibility to read TAF and NOTAMS or in this case, obtain a briefing on any special conditions and establish the weather / wind in the area.

I disagree that a general invitation implied permission to fly in. It provides no airfield details. It does not take into account the type or size of aircraft or the required performance distances, any runway closures or conditions. Those all have to be discussed when obtaining permission. eg. No I'm sorry but we won't grant you permission to land a B17 or Lancaster at our airstrip, even if you think you can do it!

 

As an example, on obtaining permission for a Victorian strip, I was asked what type of aircraft I was flying, because rain had fallen and the strip was fine for a trike, but not for a Kingair.