Problems

[Guest Nobody]

Firstly their $100,000 aircraft have been used, so it's market value they might get, and lets say that was in the present post GFC days $45,000.00. During the case there would have been a vigorous forensic examination of what the owners knew of the process they used to get these aircraft registered, and that may knock out some of this, and of course there's no commercial loss since these are purely recreational aircraft, with the possible exception of a few trainers, but let's say it's $45,000.00 x 100 owners = $4.5 million.RAA could settle for that without incurring major legal costs, apply an extraordinary one-time levee on members of $450.00, and put the matter behind them.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to export the aircraft back to the countries where they are at the regulation weight limit and presumably they have value?...

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to export the aircraft back to the countries where they are at the regulation weight limit and presumably they have value?...

 

D'you really think they'd accept them after having flown overweight for years?

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

RA-Aus insurance cover for Office Holders (Board Members) is still perilously low. Any Board Member who has some regard for hanging on to his house and super should be demanding an opinion be obtained from at least Senior Council at RA-Aus expense setting out what a volunteer (unpaid) Committee Member is liable for. Ordinary negligence or just gross negligence? Also, would doing so little to resolve the CASA audit issues be considered ordinary or gross negligence? Would failing to monitor the activities of the Tech Manager and General Manager for three years be considered gross or ordinary negligence? Would running things so badly that $2.75 million (all of) RA-Aus Members Funds is lost be considered a minor flum or gross negligence?

 

Sadly, it seems most on our Board are happy to assume none of these issues affect them and it may come as a rude surprise that "best efforts - I'm only a volunteer" may not have been enough if best efforts = crap results.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I agree Alpha ... but who is listening. You have to be intelligent to understand the risks and the issues involved.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well if they shot Breaker Morant the incumbents should watch their rear!

 

Perhaps, Alpha, you could help us by defining what induced these people into claiming what appears to be a straightforward Liability issue on their Professional Indemnity policy where the expectations are much less than the half million limit?

 

Clear that up, and the answer to your forlorn query is that Contributory Negligence to Culpable Negligence should all come out of the Liability Insurance where I would hope there is at least $30 million cover per incident and a scheme for the number of incidents covered.

 

The there would be a manageable situation where an active risk management regime could be monitored, perhaps even by an STCC.

 

It could all come together.

 

 

[facthunter]

If a person gets into a plane that is therefore overloaded and it crashes (not due to the overloading) it seems a long shot to claim the breach of the rules caused the death because the observance of them would have precluded that person boarding. Surely the real causes should be of much more significance ? If someone stole a car to transport the passenger to the airport would he/she be joined to the action as well? Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If a person gets into a plane that is therefore overloaded and it crashes (not due to the overloading) it seems a long shot to claim the breach of the rules caused the death because the observance of them would have precluded that person boarding. Surely the real causes should be of much more significance ? If someone stole a car to transport the passenger to the airport would he/she be joined to the action as well? Nev

Nev, it would seem probable that, if you are talking about a recreational aircraft, the precedent set by Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club - [2013] NSWSC 516; BC201302763 (i.e. that getting into such an aircraft is a dangerous recreational activity, like bungee jumping etc) would be employed regardless of the technical argument. So don't try being logical; go and paint the message "Abandon Hope all Ye Who Enter Here" on your aircraft.

 

This has nothing to do with the loss of utility and resale value suffered by aircraft owners who have had their MTOW reduced from 544 Kg (or whatever) to 450 / 472.5 Kg.

 

 

[facthunter]

Dafydd, there are losses all out there that we can't assess yet. Reduction of useable weight is certainly one of them, but the damage to a very active part of the "light' and affordable end of aviation overall, is hard too estimate . Schools can't operate aircraft that are in limbo but I will bet the numbers of interested students/customers will be dwindling too. Older pilots will give up waiting for something sensible to start happening, and do something else.. There has always been more BS in aviation that desirable and it is not looking like getting better. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Does the Technical Manager have a statutory authority (i.e. presumably issued by an Instrument of Appointment from CASA); or are his duties solely defined by the RAAus Procedures manual? The two situations would seem chalk and cheese; in the latter case I would expect an employers liability act to absolve the TM except in a case of criminal negligence (i.e. acting not in accordance with his instructions).

Vicarious liability of the employer doesn't absolve the employee who has a duty of care...it just allows the victim to remove the contents of the employer's hopefully much larger purse.

 

And the TM certainly has a heightened duty of care because of his qualifiactions and the consequences for people acting in reliance on them irrespective of whether it is accompanied by a statutory duty or not. I don't know if his appointment is by instrument but would expect so.

 

Kaz

 

I don't know the details of the TM's approval, but I would expect it would be similar to the approvals given to LAME's, FOI's etc

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Vicarious liability of the employer doesn't absolve the employee who has a duty of care...it just allows the victim to remove the contents of the employer's hopefully much larger purse.And the TM certainly has a heightened duty of care because of his qualifiactions and the consequences for people acting in reliance on them irrespective of whether it is accompanied by a statutory duty or not. I don't know if his appointment is by instrument but would expect so.

 

Kaz

 

I don't know the details of the TM's approval, but I would expect it would be similar to the approvals given to LAME's, FOI's etc

Kaz, I doubt you are correct about the statutory authority aspect. I suggest you look at CAAP ADMIN 1. These statutory authorities were issued by Instrument of Appointment under CAR 6, and CAR 6 applies where the term "Authorised Person" appears in the regulations. They are not "delegations" in the sense that there exists a schedule of delegations that defines the limits of the authority of all CASA employees - and uniquely, also for certain positions in the GFA. I don't think there is one, for RAAus. The GFA definitely works under a schedule of delegations; however way back, CASA decided it was not going to use that approach for the other recreational aviation authorities, because such delegates are in effect agents of CASA. (American DERs are "agents of the Administrator" in a similar way). CASA does have a liability for the activities of individuals who have Instruments of Appointment, and it did not want to increase that liability. So I think you will find that the GFA is the ONLY RecAv organisation that works that way, and it does so, I may venture, under some duress from CASA.

 

Re vicarious liability, I simply don't know. However there is a NSW Act (I do not have it to hand to give you the precise reference) that makes the employer liable for "good faith" errors on the part of his employees, short of criminal negligence. I would expect there to be parallel legislation in other States, but once again, I do not know. This argument was of considerable concern to CASA employees in the late 1980s, and I was involved in it, being an I of A holder myself at the time.

 

My understanding is that the RAAus TM is an emloyee of RAAus and his authority comes from that fact, not from an I of A issued by CASA. If, as I believe, this is the case, then under the NSW Act he would definitely, to my understanding, be protected from the consequences of errors made in good faith - the liability for these would pass to his employer. Once again, I do not know whether that applies to an employee of a non-profit organisation under ACT legislation.

 

All this says nothing about the liability of the RAA elected representatives; on that subject I am quite in the dark.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Dafydd, there are losses all out there that we can't assess yet. Reduction of useable weight is certainly one of them, but the damage to a very active part of the "light' and affordable end of aviation overall, is hard too estimate . Schools can't operate aircraft that are in limbo but I will bet the numbers of interested students/customers will be dwindling too. Older pilots will give up waiting for something sensible to start happening, and do something else.. There has always been more BS in aviation that desirable and it is not looking like getting better. Nev

Nev, what really annoys me about the whole of what I would describe as the "ultralight push" is the incredible stupidity and waste of the whole thing. I do not mean that people were stupid in trying to find a more affordable and less regulation-strewn path to committing aviation; I thoroughly sympathise with that, I wanted it myself; I mean the way that regulatory authorities all over the world have gone about it, and the way their errors have been compounded by organisation like RAA.

 

The whole thing started on the wrong foot because of the basic argument that was used to create CAO 95.10 - i.e. the "crash momentum" argument - that the aircraft were so light and slow that one falling on the roof was only likely to break a few tiles. Because of this, the powers that be launched off with watered-down design standards for aircraft that were as slow and light as could feasibly be made. This is completely the reverse of what is needed if your aim is, as mine has always been, to broaden the base of the aviation pyramid, i.e. to get more people into grass-roots flying. Instead of flimsy dragonflies with too-small disposable weight, we should have gone for simple, DURABLE aeroplanes that will still be viable when they get to their third owners. Because that is the ONLY way to make aeroplanes more affordable, in the long run. (My apologies to the 95.10 community, but from an overall industry growth viewpoint, 95.10 is a blind alley; go and enjoy it by yourselves; there's no reason why you shouldn't.)

 

Bill Whitney and I argued this long and hard with CASA - we wanted 750 Kg, without bells and whistles like retractable gear, C/S propellers etc, but using the extra weight to be DURABLE and RELIABLE. However it had already gone the wrong way all over the World. So we have a complete generation of basically impractical aircraft, except for the ones built here where we had a somewhat more realistic MTOW limit (that took some argument, by the way). The Americans eventually woke up and applied (grudgingly) a more realistic weight limit to LSA aircraft, but they are still having problems in that category with people who do not understand what they are trying to do, or who do understand and are trying to cheat. The Euros haven't woken up yet, they're too busy building Airbusses, but their manufacturers have, and are now aiming at the US LSA market. However the first generation of Euro ultralights were all fettered by the 450 Kg limit, and none of them made as good a fist of that as did Jabiru with their original LSA-55.

 

So it was natural that the importers would do their damndest to rort the system so they could flog the impractical crap resulting from the original Euro rules, to a basically ignorant* market. RAAus has wittingly or unwittingly allowed this to happen, and the inevitable consequence is, yet again, that the whole thing is going sour and will once again turn people away from aviation. We have spent ten years wasting a marvellous opportunity, and some people ought to be shot for that. I've seen this coming for a decade, but I could do nothing against the cloud-cuckoo-land determined collective stupidity that caused it - too many venal people making a quid from too many dedicated fools, and the association that the dedicated fools set up to keep them in their blissful stupidity, compounding the situation. If I could spare any, it would make me tear my hair. I can't afford the blood pressure any more, so I'm going "fishing". But at least people should wake up to how imbecelic they have been, and do not make the same mistakes next time around.

 

As far as I can see, it's all going to collapse into a heap of rubble, and it will be a question of starting again. This time, please look a little beyond your toes, and see if you can get it right, for a change.

 

*actually, I think the Hilbilly term "iggernut" applies - "Ignorant" means "don't know". "Iggernut" means "doan' know an' doan' WANNA know"

 

Dafydd

 

 

[kaz3g]

Kaz, I doubt you are correct about the statutory authority aspect. As I said above, I don't know the circumstances of the TM's authority but it seems to me to be unlikely to have any great import if it simply relies on the Manual.

 

Re vicarious liability, I simply don't know. However there is a NSW Act (I do not have it to hand to give you the precise reference) that makes the employer liable for "good faith" errors on the part of his employees, short of criminal negligence.

 

That's the principal of vicarious liability. It doesn't prevent him from being sued, it just means the employer is joined and has to open his purse strings to pay for the damages for proven civil torts. It doesn't protect the employee if there is criminal negligence.

 

All this says nothing about the liability of the RAA elected representatives; on that subject I am quite in the dark.

This is a huge topic and there is surprisingly little case law to guide us. Generally, it seems, directors of incorporated associations have similar fiduciary responsiblities as directors of corporations under the Corporations Law. They can be held liable in negligence and can be sued for damages in relation to the inadequate performance of their duties. A good reason for directors making sure they have insurance and that it is adequate.

 

kaz

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

. . . A good reason for directors making sure they have insurance and that it is adequate.

The Board Members are blissfully ignorant. They don't know what their liability might be, don't care and don't have anywhere near enough insurance cover to protect their house and Superannuation.

 

The incoming Board Members need to be asking now and demanding proper cover before accepting their election to the Board.

 

Trevor & Tony - this means you.

 

 

[ozbear]

Nev, what really annoys me about the whole of what I would describe as the "ultralight push" is the incredible stupidity and waste of the whole thing. I do not mean that people were stupid in trying to find a more affordable and less regulation-strewn path to committing aviation; I thoroughly sympathise with that, I wanted it myself; I mean the way that regulatory authorities all over the world have gone about it, and the way their errors have been compounded by organisation like RAA. The whole thing started on the wrong foot because of the basic argument that was used to create CAO 95.10 - i.e. the "crash momentum" argument - that the aircraft were so light and slow that one falling on the roof was only likely to break a few tiles. Because of this, the powers that be launched off with watered-down design standards for aircraft that were as slow and light as could feasibly be made. This is completely the reverse of what is needed if your aim is, as mine has always been, to broaden the base of the aviation pyramid, i.e. to get more people into grass-roots flying. Instead of flimsy dragonflies with too-small disposable weight, we should have gone for simple, DURABLE aeroplanes that will still be viable when they get to their third owners. Because that is the ONLY way to make aeroplanes more affordable, in the long run. (My apologies to the 95.10 community, but from an overall industry growth viewpoint, 95.10 is a blind alley; go and enjoy it by yourselves; there's no reason why you shouldn't.)

 

Bill Whitney and I argued this long and hard with CASA - we wanted 750 Kg, without bells and whistles like retractable gear, C/S propellers etc, but using the extra weight to be DURABLE and RELIABLE. However it had already gone the wrong way all over the World. So we have a complete generation of basically impractical aircraft, except for the ones built here where we had a somewhat more realistic MTOW limit (that took some argument, by the way). The Americans eventually woke up and applied (grudgingly) a more realistic weight limit to LSA aircraft, but they are still having problems in that category with people who do not understand what they are trying to do, or who do understand and are trying to cheat. The Euros haven't woken up yet, they're too busy building Airbusses, but their manufacturers have, and are now aiming at the US LSA market. However the first generation of Euro ultralights were all fettered by the 450 Kg limit, and none of them made as good a fist of that as did Jabiru with their original LSA-55.

 

So it was natural that the importers would do their damndest to rort the system so they could flog the impractical crap resulting from the original Euro rules, to a basically ignorant* market. RAAus has wittingly or unwittingly allowed this to happen, and the inevitable consequence is, yet again, that the whole thing is going sour and will once again turn people away from aviation. We have spent ten years wasting a marvellous opportunity, and some people ought to be shot for that. I've seen this coming for a decade, but I could do nothing against the cloud-cuckoo-land determined collective stupidity that caused it - too many venal people making a quid from too many dedicated fools, and the association that the dedicated fools set up to keep them in their blissful stupidity, compounding the situation. If I could spare any, it would make me tear my hair. I can't afford the blood pressure any more, so I'm going "fishing". But at least people should wake up to how imbecelic they have been, and do not make the same mistakes next time around.

 

As far as I can see, it's all going to collapse into a heap of rubble, and it will be a question of starting again. This time, please look a little beyond your toes, and see if you can get it right, for a change.

 

*actually, I think the Hilbilly term "iggernut" applies - "Ignorant" means "don't know". "Iggernut" means "doan' know an' doan' WANNA know"

 

Dafydd

So Dayfydd what your trying to say is some of us are aerotards wanting to fly ultratards.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

I can see the 25 year RA reunion now, the Ferris wheel flopper, the fat cat and the financial fool, with the middle of the road manager serving the soft drinks, while the jaded majority have a bonfire burning the discarded invites... What a mess.

 

 

[Oscar]

I cannot locate a copy of the Deed of Agreement between CASA and RAA; however if the Tech. Manager is not the holder of an I of A with CASA, then it appears from what I can glean, that the instruments for the Exemption under which RAA operates places the responsibility for all matters - including compliance with Tech. standards - in the hands of the Executive. The T.M. would be a 'servant' of the Executive, not directly responsible to CASA.

 

IF that is correct, then any defence of 'we trusted him' for the performance of the Tech. Manager is a mealy-mouthed abrogation of responsibility. Worse, however, in the light of the overly-repetitive turnover of Tech. Managers in RAA, is the possibility that the Tech. Manager was not allowed to exercise his responsibilities without influence from above, and frankly the lack of transparency of the reasons for at the very least several recent Tech. Managers leaving suddenly and without ANY explanation of why from the Executive makes me extremely suspicious of what may have transpired behind the scenes.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Actually, if you think about it, the Tech Manager cannot be functioning under an I of A from CASA when he registers an aircraft: Firstly, it would be no use whatever him being a Delegate, because CASA'a powers of delegation relate only to functions that relate to specific regulations. My understanding is that RAAus aircraft are NOT registered under CASR Part 47 (if they were, any appropriately-licenced aircraft could fly them, without being an RAA member - I had that out with CASA several years ago); therefore the TM cannot be applying a delegation in relation to Part 47 when he registers an RAAus aircraft. Similarly, an I of A as an Authorised Person can only be issued where the words "or an Authorised Person" appear in the regulations. He MAY have an I of A in regard to one of the regulations from which RAAus is not exempted, I suppose, but I can't think of a function of the TM that would require that.