Can A Thread Realy Kill Anyone?

[turboplanner]

Your completely wrong there, it was no cheap shot! I`m not inerested in taking cheap shots at anyone! It was and still is an attempt at saying that it is the choices and decissions that are made by the individual, that finaly determine the outcome!Where adults are cncerned, I do not and never will, subscribe to the theory, " Monkey see, Monkey do". That may apply to children.

 

Anyony in controll of an aircraft is considered to be an adult who should know what they are doing, therefore, responsible for their own actions.

 

A public forum is just that, a place to exchange opinions and ideas, not a place to get the most up to date rules and regulations.

 

Frank

I agree with you that choices and decisions made by the individual finally determine the outcome.

 

Twenty or more years ago that was it. If someone wasn't looking where he was going and slipped on wet concrete (which was normally dry) at the supermarket he was on his own.

 

These days its accepted that the owner of that concrete has a duty of care to warn him when it is wet.

 

The responsibility has shifted back up the decision tree.

 

In the 1980's when those of us directly involved were desperately trying to find out feet in all this, and save our houses at the same time, we argued that you couldn't look after every goose, and adopted a benchmark that "you don't have to tell a Carpenter how to drive a nail"

 

Turns out that we did because we lost cases, so a good example of how careful you have to be today is the requirement of a $700.00 TAFE course in Mackay before you can set foot on any of the mine sites, and if you want to operate a vehicle on site, there are a few thousand dollars worth of extras required.

 

So today the PIC is still the PIC, and in terms of CASA regulations will still be right or wrong depending on whether he complies precisely with the clause, but at the same time public liability is applying, and, going back to your original statement, choices and decisions made by the individual finally determine the outcome, where you influence those choices or decisions you have a duty of care not to harm anyone. You cannot absolve yourself from that advice.

 

A couple of other people wrote along the same lines, but you can't give someone advice and then say they have to rely on their own common sense, or make their own decisions - when things go wrong they always remember who told them to do it.

 

So what is printed in a thread like this is picked up and retained, and it's risky to promote departing from known safe standards, usually in the form of regulations.

 

My description of a thread that could kill someone was based on the words "operating in the dark", and the suggestion there was an RAA Night VFR. If that catches someone's eye, and they try it by themselves, they could get killed. That's what I was implying.

 

Some people have supported that by arguing that lives can also be saved by good information on threads, and I agree with that. The thread has the power to change behaviour.

 

 

[farri]

Some people have supported that by arguing that lives can also be saved by good information on threads, and I agree with that. The thread has the power to change behaviour.

Finally!

 

You may be begining to understand my motive for starting this thread! Even if you don`t agree with my method!

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[Mick]

My description of a thread that could kill someone was based on the words "operating in the dark", and the suggestion there was an RAA Night VFR.

Again you seem incapable of reading the very first line of my post, so here it is again -

 

" Obviously we cannot fly at night but........"

 

I think that in no way "suggests" that there is an RAAus Night VFR.

 

I also said the following which you have said does not exist -

 

"If I have an RAAus aircraft that was built for Night VFR and hence has a full lighting package,"

 

Again this does not "suggest" that there is an RAAus Night VFR, what it states is the fact there are aircraft that have been built for other categories or other countries that are built for NVFR but end up on the RAAus register. I added that point to the original post as some may take it that having the lights may make it acceptable.

 

As I have said in the original thread I posted this only to provoke some thought & discussion amongst members of this forum. As has come out as a result of this discussion is that it appears that the regs do not specifically mention taxying but it is covered by the words "operating or operation". I was pretty sure that was the case, hence the use of the word "operating" in the thread title.

 

If you want to stop posts here that may be construed so as to be read wrongly in case someone does take it the wrong way, we all might as well stop posting altogether.

 

 

[Admin]

Posting topics to excite interesting discussion is fully supported and encouraged so please let's shake hands and then come out fighting...hope Ford wins at the great race this weekend

 

 

[Doug Evans]

FORD WILL WIN:beg:

 

 

[Tomo]

Didn't even know Ford raced...

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Didn't even know Ford raced...

Just Win ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

[Phil Perry]

My old Dad used to say . . . " If yer can't afford a Dodge,. . .at least try to Dodge a Ford. . . . " ( ? )

 

 

[Phil Perry]

And there I was, looking for a place on the forum to upload some amusing pictures I found in my archives,. . . . . but I don't want to be accused of "Imprinting" on younger aviators, . . or subliminally auto- suggesting that it's OK to fly in cloud or in the dark. . . . . to any of our aspiring / younger aviators OR exsiting ones who may be a little weak under the cap. . . . . .

 

Decisions. . . . Decisions. . . . . OH SOD IT. . . . I'll post them anyway and get lampooned.

 

These two were printed in our CLub Magazine in the "Safety Matters" section some time ago, to highlight the exact opposite of what the picture depicted. . . . . .

 

( Editor's Note ** I'll have to reduce them and come back later ) [ Daft Git ! ]