RAA Aus resignations

[fly_tornado]

What would bother you with the RAA? I suspect that the board members that resigned did so that they wouldn't be held responsible. I wonder if the liability insurance issue has anything to do with that Ferris wheel incident?

 

 

[Admin]

Or to do with the Sting accident:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/images/Smith and Guthrie Finding - Final.doc

 

 

[damkia]

Or to do with the Sting accident:http://www.recreationalflying.com/images/Smith and Guthrie Finding - Final.doc

Very interesting read....everyone NEEDS to read this.Has a few recent points included in various threads here. Galaxy BRS going off after impact, Rotax engine catastrophic failure, Non/low funding of RA-Aus leading to poor auditing capacity, Lack of expertise in RA-Aus (volunteer organisation), etc...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Especially the one about how they had the engine stop, which many here consider a breeze, AND FAILED TO MAKE A FRIGGING FORCED LANDING FROM ALTITUDE.

 

 

[facthunter]

While some members may not seem perturbed by the lack of indemnity insurance, There is no way that I (for one) would be part of the board under those circumstances. I still state if CASA puts the RAAus in a position of vulnerability(re legal liability), CASA should indemnify RAAus as it is, in some ways , doing it's (CASA's) job. CASA is supposed to audit RAAus so that ties in with the concept. It already pays some money for the job done.Nev

 

 

[damkia]

While some members may not seem perturbed by the lack of indemnity insurance, There is no way that I (for one) would be part of the board under those circumstances. I still state if CASA puts the RAAus in a position of vulnerability(re legal liability), CASA should indemnify RAAus as it is, in some ways , doing it's (CASA's) job. CASA is supposed to audit RAAus so that ties in with the concept. It already pays some money for the job done.Nev

That would certainly be the view I have....If they are not FUNDING the RA-Aus to the required level to achieve the require level of diligence then CASA probably has a case to answer.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I could be wrong but last year RAA had $1M in the bank. There was a long overdue published financial report in the Sport Pilot.

 

 

[Admin]

I could be wrong but last year RAA had $1M in the bank. There was a long overdue published financial report in the Sport Pilot.

$1m, which is Member's money, doesn't go very far if someone is suing for $5m

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Doesn't our insurance cover any lawsuit payouts? I'm sure no one would persue a 5 million payout if we only had $1 million in the bank.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I sorted of figured that the RAA was holding that $1M back to protect themselves from litigation.

 

what struck me about how the RAA does business is when I joined I was sent an unbound operations manual and a poly propolene shopping bag with the RAA logo on it. So I rang the RAA to find out where the binder for the manual was and they politely told me I had to buy my own! bag went into the bin

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

They sent you a copy of the ops manual! All i got was a AUF sticker for the car that faded out in two months.

 

 

[facthunter]

A five million payout would sink the organisation, wouldn't it?

 

 

[pudestcon]

Or to do with the Sting accident:http://www.recreationalflying.com/images/Smith and Guthrie Finding - Final.doc

The findings by the NSW State Coroner were handed down in February 2009. What, if anything, has resulted from the coroner's recommendations. I'm not advocating any of the recommendations, just wanting to know if anything resulted from this affair.

Pud

 

 

[Admin]

A five million payout would sink the organisation, wouldn't it?

It could well be the end result if someone lost a loved one and happened to serve papers or whatever the situation may be that constitutes legal action at a time when there is no directors insurance etc.

If I was a board member at that specific time I would be "Out of there faster then a speeding bullet"

 

 

[fly_tornado]

A five million payout would sink the organisation, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't the ongoing problem be finding an insurer who will take on the RAA as a customer if the last insurer has to make a big pay out?

 

 

[Admin]

The findings by the NSW State Coroner were handed down in February 2009. What, if anything, has resulted from the coroner's recommendations. I'm not advocating any of the recommendations, just wanting to know if anything resulted from this affair.Pud

A hell of a lot Pud, but unfortunately I can't say more other then it is still going and gathering momentum. A lot of the repercussions were happening when I was a board member and things have progressed.

 

 

[Admin]

Wouldn't the ongoing problem be finding an insurer who will take on the RAA as a customer if the last insurer has to make a big pay out?

An insurer would, I presume, like to see that everything is getting fixed first and one way would be for a change in management so they would be "seen" as being "able" to fix things which is why I have been saying this

 

 

[djpacro]

CASA has long had a policy of indemnifying its delegates - I read this occasionally just to make sure that I stay on the right track myself. Not sure if it is directly relevant to the RAA as an organisation. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/download/caaps/admin/,svFileName=admin_1.pdf

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I suppose if you can afford $150k for an LSA you can afford $500 a year RAA subscription.

 

 

[Teckair]

Especially the one about how they had the engine stop, which many here consider a breeze, AND FAILED TO MAKE A FRIGGING FORCED LANDING FROM ALTITUDE.

This is another one of those accidents that makes me think people do not put enough importance on practising glide approaches.

 

 

[damkia]

This is another one of those accidents that makes me think people do not put enough importance on practising glide approaches.

In fairness, the report did make it clear that there may have been hidden objects that impacted the nosewheel causing the rollover. It may not be poor airmanship, it may be bad luck of not seeing a rock in the proposed landing strip. It was not as if they coud do a go-around at low level to survey the field.It could be the old "Human factors" component of your field of view reducing to +/- 6 degrees in stressful situations.

 

 

[David Isaac]

While some members may not seem perturbed by the lack of indemnity insurance, There is no way that I (for one) would be part of the board under those circumstances. I still state if CASA puts the RAAus in a position of vulnerability(re legal liability), CASA should indemnify RAAus as it is, in some ways , doing it's (CASA's) job. CASA is supposed to audit RAAus so that ties in with the concept. It already pays some money for the job done.Nev

Folks,

Please forgive me for this long post; I think some points need to be made regarding the implications of not having adequate liability insurance. From some comments I have seen in this thread and others there is a fair dose of naivety out there. Since RA-Aus is an association of members, it is our association and we (the members) should understand the implications on those we elect to Board (committee) positions.

 

What Nev has said above is pivotal in this whole issue, the issue of what Professional Indemnity insurance and Directors liability insurance RA Aus carries. Such insurance is typically referred to as ‘Associations liability cover’.

 

I will give an example in simplistic terms of a hypothetical implication following a hypothetical accident involving a fatality:

 

An accident occurs involving an RA Aus registered aircraft and RA Aus certificated pilot.

 

The accident results in a fatality.

 

The estate of the deceased sues the estate of the pilot, because of alleged mistakes and/or RA Aus and/or CASA on the grounds that RA-Aus had given an incorrect registration category for the aircraft. This could be an LSA approval that should not have been given or a situation where the aircraft was given a higher than approved weight category or a number of other possible issues. CASA may be implicated in the proceedings on the basis of failing to carry out adequate surveillance of RA Aus. Of course the party taking the action (the plaintiff), would need to prove any of these factors contributed to the fatality in order to establish liability.

 

Regardless of the viability of any case taken against RA-Aus and any other defendants, RA-Aus and any other defendants will have to fund the costs of legal defense and this can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

So before any culpability or liability is established we have substantial legal costs to fund. If the proceedings find against RA-Aus et all, then we have to fund the damages payout and this could easily reach several million dollars.

 

If RA –Aus is not insured or under insured then the party bringing the action against RA Aus et all can pursue claim of the damages from the Board members individually; and if the Board is not insured or under insured then they stand to lose their personal assets and the possibility of facing personal bankruptcy.

 

Now away from the hypothetical:

 

There is currently a case running in the NSW court systems from the widow of a deceased party against the estate of the deceased other party and joins RA Aus in the claim because it is alleged that the aircraft was certified by RA Aus at a weight that was not approved and against CASA because of alleged failure to adequately supervise RA Aus operations. Get the picture.

 

If I was to suggest that RA Aus legal costs had already consumed the total professional liability cover for a single incident and the case was still running, does that not help to throw some light on the real issues here.

 

Further if any damages were to be awarded against RA Aus in the outcome of this case, RA-Aus (our organisation), would have insufficient cover to pay and would have to fund the damages out of members’ funds.

 

If the damages were substantial and there were insufficient members’ funds to pay, then it is possible the party seeking damages would do so from the Board members individually. NOT the RA-Aus management … the RA-Aus Board members individually. If there was no Director’s liability insurance or insufficient cover, the directors personal assets are at risk. Couple that with difficulties in the renewal process for RA-Aus insurance.

 

If you were a Board member what would you do …

 

RA Aus has a maximum PI cover of $500K for any one incident and the Directors liability cover is only $500K for any one incident … do the maths … legal fees alone could consume that amount.

 

I carry PI insurance for my business activities 10x the current RA Aus cover. The main reason I carry it is ironically not in case I make a mistake (which any of us can make), but to have sufficient cover to fund the legal fees in defense of a claim. Whether the claim has any basis in success or not, the cost of defense alone could bankrupt you long before any successful claim for damages.

 

 

[Teckair]

In fairness, the report did make it clear that there may have been hidden objects that impacted the nosewheel causing the rollover. It may not be poor airmanship, it may be bad luck of not seeing a rock in the proposed landing strip. It was not as if they coud do a go-around at low level to survey the field.It could be the old "Human factors" component of your field of view reducing to +/- 6 degrees in stressful situations.

The report said they died instantly on impact. Not seeing a rock in a emergency landing area should not kill you, if I thought that was the case I would not get in a plane.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I'd say that the general area of the accident is more toward largeish boulder size and plenty of them. Didn't the BRS inflate on deployment and the wind dragged the aircraft some distance also hitting another large boulder?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think you'll find the RAA issue was Professional Indemnity, not Public Liability - a much smaller issue.

 

Re any large PL amounts in the ongoing Sting issue, My undertstanding is that would centre around duty of care, including duty of care of the pilot/pilot's estate.