Old Bar Ferris Wheel Incident

[kaz3g]

...the only thing is that we need to be mindful that we don't do any damage to a person or aircraft's reputation along the way...

A very true remark, Ian, and very good advice. Some people make a lot of money out of litigating and I'd rather spend money on avgas than other lawyers

 

kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

Windsocks and confusion..... Most of the confusion will be with choosing the runway to use when there is a disparity. Having windsocks near obstacles where the "general' wind can't be read is foolish.

 

Local knowledge is valid for "locals" who know it, but the system must work for all .

 

A windsock is OK near the threshold of any runway that will give a good indication of the "valid" wind. but pilot's should not be too preoccupied with them.

 

To be aware of the DUTY runway would be a good start when approaching an area, because the need to fit in with the other traffic is fairly paramount, as far as the safety aspect goes.

 

Winds may change, particularly where things like a sea breeze comes through on a hot afternoon. These changes can give you a 300" climb with power off on downwind or be heralded by considerable turbulence, so should be hardly likely to occurr without the experienced pilot noticing, and checking the wind again, but would be the worry of a flying instructor who has just sent a low hours pilot out to do some airwork solo.

 

How nice it would be to have someone on a radio (ground),saying something like " ALL aircraft Camelot Field,, duty runway IS now zero three,. wind light and variable tending northerly, (3 aircraft in the circuit..maybe add)

 

This is NOT air traffic control, just reduction of confusion and would eliminate the need to fly right over the top to trying to get an idea of where the wind is coming from... Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

For people who Bothered to read my Post #558, which has not been edited in anyway.I stated that the was next to no wind around.This was on wednesday.I was the only person flying, for about 30 minutes.Then the other aircraft from airsport took off.I took off on 04. They took off on o4 and headed to the southern training area.Either runway could have been used.I was inbound from the SE, heard their Departure call and had them sighted as they climbed out. I did 4 ccts on 04, then decided to change ccts direction, why ? Because I can and I radioed my intensions which the other aircraft heard and confirmed as hearing.

 

On the weekend when it is very busy,the CFI at the glider club and the CFI of Airsport always, discuss with each other about what the duty runway is going to be,SO everybody is on the same page, from both clubs.Normally 04 is used, even if there is a little tailwind component.It is a lot easier for the gliders to be launched and recovered from that end.If /when the wind picks up/changes direction.They will reassess the duty runway.If they change it they will announce it on The CTAF frequency.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think we were talking generally Dazz

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is NOT air traffic control, just reduction of confusion and would eliminate the need to fly right over the top to trying to get an idea of where the wind is coming from... Nev

It always amazes me to come into an airfield where there are two or three movements a day, do it the hard way and find three or four pilots standing there doing something with an aircraft, talking flying, but not realising they could have done something positive.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think we were talking generally Dazz

I was. And I also give very clear and careful calls if I have to land in the contra-direction because of the wind.

 

kaz

 

 

[Guernsey]

Nobody has mentioned the ferris wheel. ?????

 

 

[turboplanner]

...or the Morgan?

 

 

[dazza 38]

Thats probably because its been thrashed out to death.Maybe some people are waiting for the Final ATSB Report.Should have it by this time next year.

 

 

[David Isaac]

A very true remark, Ian, and very good advice. Some people make a lot of money out of litigating and I'd rather spend money on avgas than other lawyers

This should never be bandied around as a means of silencing discussion on matters that can be established ‘in the public interest’, this is an area where we need to use great discretion. Terrible damage can be done to a person or organisation’s reputation by indiscreet comments that are based on perception rather than verifiable fact and often stated as fact rather than opinion and often not stated in the public interest.Generally speaking defamation is a common occurrence in daily activity, often in what we may think are innocent ways. The fact is, nearly everyone makes defamatory statements almost every day. Only very rarely does someone use the law of defamation against such statements.

 

There is an interesting statement about defamation law I find intriguing …

 

“The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from unfair attack. In practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny….

 

The basic idea of defamation law is simple. It is an attempt to balance the private right to protect one's reputation with the public right to freedom of speech. Defamation law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments.” from:'Information liberation - Challenging the corruptions of information power' - Brian Martin

 

Clearly there needs to be a balance where important information in the public interest can be expressed without the fear of litigation.

 

If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:

 

* what you said was true;

 

* you had a duty to provide information;

 

* you were expressing an opinion.

 

The same basic defences apply throughout Australia, although the things you have to prove to apply them may differ. For example, in some Australian states, truth alone is an adequate defence. In other states, a statement has to be true and in the public interest -- if what you said was true but not considered by the court to be in the public interest, you can be successfully sued for defamation.

 

But be warned … I am no lawyer and no doubt Kaz will tell us that the cost of pursuing defamatory action either as the plaintiff or the defendant can often cost more than any settlement achieves.

 

That is why, if there are areas of concern in our RAA community that are not yet public knowledge, I much prefer discussion in a manner that causes no damage to a person or organisation's reputation. Ideally this should be followed by an approach to that person or organisation; and failing a successful resolution, reporting to the appropriate authorities. But you do need ‘balls’ to do that or is it the ‘courage to follow your own convictions’.

 

That is why I started the other thread to discuss how we should behave in a non-defamatory manner and be a part of the solution, not contribute to the problem.

 

 

[Guernsey]

...or the Morgan?

I received an email from Gary Morgan this morning with pictures of his latest factory built Cougar heading for WA. Looks fantastic.

 

I didn't know how to post it so have spoken to Ian who will be doing it for me.

 

Also progress news on his new Motor Glider.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Guernsey]

I received an email from Gary Morgan this morning with pictures of his latest factory built Cougar heading for WA. Looks fantastic.I didn't know how to post it so have spoken to Ian who will be doing it for me.

Also progress news on his new Motor Glider.

 

Alan.

Come on Ian, let's give Gary an encouraging lift for Christmas....let's show off his new aircraft.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Sloper]

 

Hope Gary doesnt mind, looks very good.

 

Merry Christmas Bruce

 

 

[kaz3g]

.... Terrible damage can be done to a person or organisation’s reputation by indiscreet comments that are based on perception rather than verifiable fact and often stated as fact rather than opinion and often not stated in the public interest......That is why, if there are areas of concern in our RAA community that are not yet public knowledge, I much prefer discussion in a manner that causes no damage to a person or organisation's reputation. Ideally this should be followed by an approach to that person or organisation; and failing a successful resolution, reporting to the appropriate authorities....

Freedom of speech is an implied right under our Constitution but it is a right limited by the balancing right of individuals not to have their reputation unfairly impugned

 

So we speak of "allegations" rather than statements that imply they are reporting a proven fact or, better still, speak in the abstract so that the individual is not named.

 

And what is said on a list like this constitutes "publication" for the purposes of defamation so a careful scribe would couch his statement in terms such as: "If the allegations that the pilot was not trained by an approved FTF were true, then that could reflect very badly on the RAAus recording and monitoring systems."

 

I know some might regard this as pussyfooting around and not care for their own protection, but at least take care that you do not cause the list-owner grief because he is equally liable for your statements as the publisher. The protection afforded by a waiver or disclaimer is a fragile one. Nevertheless, you can see what some think is reasonable if you have a quick look at the outrageous comments on the same topic of some contributors to the wrinkled plum. And hosting off-shore is no protection as the High Court has already held that the publication of electronic communications occurs where they are accessed by the reader.

 

kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hope Gary doesnt mind, looks very good. Merry Christmas Bruce

He knows how to design 'snappy' looking aircraft ... it looks great.

 

 

[Guernsey]

[Hope Gary doesnt mind, looks very good.

 

Merry Christmas Bruce

Gary doesn't mind, he's a bit like me in that he is not sure how to post photos so he sends them to Ian and others hoping that we can do it for him.

 

All the best for Christmas.

 

Alan.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Posting photos is easy.

 

Make sure you have a .jpg file ,remember which directory it's in, click on upload a file, go back to the directory, click the filename and watch it load the link.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Posting photos is easy.Make sure you have a .jpg file ,remember which directory it's in, click on upload a file, go back to the directory, click the filename and watch it load the link.

Thanks Turbo I knew how to do that but couldn't do it from an email sent to me. Have now sorted how to transfer the photos to my pictures to do as you suggest.

 

Thanks again,

 

Alan.

 

 

[hendonguy]

does anyone know what happened there today involving a light aircraft.

Could I ask , was there any legal problems for the ferris wheel operator or pilot come out of an accident investergation of this ?

 

 

[J170 Owner]

[ATTACH=full]16029[/ATTACH]

Hope Gary doesnt mind, looks very good.

 

Merry Christmas Bruce

Rudder is too short.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Could I ask , was there any legal problems for the ferris wheel operator or pilot come out of an accident investergation of this ?

The incident is still under investigation.I think.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes I believe it is. ATSB, the full gammitt. Interesting isnt it, that there are multiple fatals that are still un explained in RAA acft, and that dont (apparently) warrant anything more than a police report. And a non fatal, obvious stuff up, gets the "full monty". Glad to see "lets appear to be doing the right thing" polotics are alive and kicking..

 

Sorry about the rant.. now..Back to the v8's

 

 

[Yenn]

Motz. I assume that there was a full investigation into the Ferris wheel accident, because it involved the non flying public. It is less of a problem for pilots to kill themselves than it is for pilots to kill non aviation people.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Motz. I assume that there was a full investigation into the Ferris wheel accident, because it involved the non flying public. It is less of a problem for pilots to kill themselves than it is for pilots to kill non aviation people.

I cant speak for Andy, but that is the way I see it.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Motz. I assume that there was a full investigation into the Ferris wheel accident, because it involved the non flying public. It is less of a problem for pilots to kill themselves than it is for pilots to kill non aviation people.

yea that would make sense if anyone had actually been injured..:)