What licence required for this?

[turboplanner]

I was talking about two levels of negligence.

 

Yes, contributory negligence is a civil matter, and re your third paragraph the Court ordered compensation. A lot of people have difficulty coming to grips with the "reverse logic" nature of these cases based on the precedent that broadly says that even though you had no intention of hurting them you owed them a duty of care to ensure they were not hurt (that's just from memory - look up the Donoghue vs Stevenson case if you want the accurate version.

 

One of the bizarre early cases was the person who was refused entry to a hotel because he had no shoes and attached banana skins (or bananas) to his feet, was allowed in, slipped, and got a judgement. (This is one of the cases which, as crazy as it seems helps to understand the concept of duty of care.

 

So that's the Civil version you are referring to; so far you are not aware that there is a risk of injury or death.

 

However, if for example you were responsible for the area, knew a snag had drifted into the swimming hole and decided not to close it to diving (perhaps because you had a carnival coming up which would cost money to cancel), that would be culpable negligence and you would be charged by police under the crimes act.

 

One example was when a roadmaking machine operator reported to his boss that the brakes were not working, and was told something like "just get on with the job, and be careful). The operator was killed and the manager was sent to prison.

 

Another example which is relevant to us in terms of breaching specifications (such as weight and balance, take off distance etc), were two guys towing a panel van with an under-specification rope, which broke and allowed the van to roll down a hill and kill a woman - they got 6 1/2 years each.

 

Which is why I harp on about posters here boasting that rules are for wusses.

 

 

[rick-p]

Just a thought, I wonder what pressure is involved, enough to strip flesh from bone if you got in the stream of water? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but just think about it, the end of a garden hose will lift off the ground a couple of feet if turned on fully, but there is little weight in that.

 

A 4" fire hose will knock you around if turned on fully and from experience, can lift you a little into the air but how high are these guys going.

 

Under the water isn't a problem except, when, because your not wearing goggles, the retina in the eyes are displaced.

 

It would be like any of those gimmicky fads that have taken place over the last 6 decades or so but a dam site dearer than a Hoola Hoop.

 

Great as an amusement park attraction or a tourist attraction at a resort but I would have thought other than the rich and famous it would be absolutely useless to us Pleb's, no different to tits on a bull!

 

It just dawned on me there is a scientific trick to this, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

The actual hose, setting aside the need for it to act as the medium to transfer the water up to the equipment the guy is wearing, is the means whereby he stays aloft as the water is causing it to become rigid lifting the person in the air.

 

OMG where's Fact Hunter when you need him.

 

Sorry about my rant for the day, I will have to stop picking up durries thrown out of choppers (site video clips)!

 

 

[eightyknots]

Which is why I harp on about posters here boasting that rules are for wusses.

I completely agree with you that many laws and rules are made to enhance/promote the welfare of people.

 

In a crude allocation, rules could be divided as follows:

 

1. to enhance/promote the welfare of people.

 

2. to promote and enhance the welfare of politicians (I won't speculate on examples of these rules and laws because that is an unrelated matter worthy of a thread on another -i.e. political- forum; I am not a member of any political forum because I simply cannot be bothered).

 

3. rules and laws that appear to have been heavily promoted by "law reform commissions" or "law society submissions" many of which appear to enhance and promote the financial welfare and status of lawyers.

 

4. rules and laws where common sense has been utterly dispensed with to the extent that blind obedience is required and human thinking has to be put aside.

 

I only like the Category 1 rules. Anyone who thinks these rules are for wusses will (in all likelihood) do damage to themselves, their family members or friends, or members of the public. Such people need to be taken out of the aviation realm because they will ultimately spoil the sport for many others by the bad publicity that such incidents will generate.

 

The burining issue is, how do you get rid of such "cowboy" rule-breakers before there are injuries or fatalities? And, who will do it??