Problems

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Y'know, one of the best reasons to put RecAv back into the CASRs seems to me to be that falsification of documents - e.g. for a C of A for an imported aircraft - would come under S 83A of the Crimes Act 1958 (up to 10 years imprisonment); and whilst RAAus cannot readily invoke that, CASA can and will. I can't think of a better way to keep the importers honest.

So I dont understand this point at all, if we have been provided falsified documents what stops us refering these to police? To suggest that only Government or quasi Government organsiations can have illegality dealt with is patently wrong. I'm pretty comfortable that anyone doing the same thing to a bank to support a loan application will very quickly find themselves talking to the men in blue.

 

If, and there has been talk about this but only as whispers in the background, for many many years, then I can only conclude either its not at all real, or our organisation has no established procedures for dealing with fraud. If it has happened in the past as is constantly alluded to, then why havent we refered it to the police?

 

Andy

 

P.S For anyone that answers this take a care for what you write. It would seem to me that if you know enough to provide specific details for a specific ocasion then those details should be provided to the Federal police rather than written here I suggest

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So I dont understand this point at all, if we have been provided falsified documents what stops us refering these to police? To suggest that only Government or quasi Government organsiations can have illegality dealt with is patently wrong. I'm pretty comfortable that anyone doing the same thing to a bank to support a loan application will very quickly find themselves talking to the men in blue.If, and there has been talk about this but only as whispers in the background, for many many years, then I can only conclude either its not at all real, or our organisation has no established procedures for dealing with fraud. If it has happened in the past as is constantly alluded to, then why havent we refered it to the police?

 

Andy

 

P.S For anyone that answers this take a care for what you write. It would seem to me that if you know enough to provide specific details for a specific ocasion then those details should be provided to the Federal police rather than written here I suggest

The answers are, in order: (i) I have no idea whether, or if not, why, RAAus haven't reported it to the Police; (ii) It's sub-judicae. But what has happened is definitely not satisfactory.

 

 

[kaz3g]

NSW SC has dismissed a negligence suit on the basis that gliding is a dangerous recreational activity and the participants were warned of the danger posed by the power lines

 

Case - NSW

 

Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club - [2013] NSWSC 516; BC201302763

 

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found Southern Tablelands Gliding Club (STGC) not liable for the injuries suffered by one of its members, whose glider collided with high tension electricity lines while coming in to land ...[more]

 

 

[David Isaac]

NSW SC has dismissed a negligence suit on the basis that gliding is a dangerous recreational activity and the participants were warned of the danger posed by the power lines

Case - NSW

 

Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club - [2013] NSWSC 516; BC201302763

 

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found Southern Tablelands Gliding Club (STGC) not liable for the injuries suffered by one of its members, whose glider collided with high tension electricity lines while coming in to land ...[more]

So sanity, logic and reason does still have a place in the Supreme Court of NSW ... Hallelujah.

So if we accept that an activity is dangerous and we have been made aware of certain hazards, the courts will reject an unreasonable claim against a party in circumstances where that party made us aware of a the particular hazard particularly where that party trained us in avoiding the hazard.

 

 

[turboplanner]

NSW, NSW, NSW ONLY - and in the gliding case, is there an appeal pending?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So sanity, logic and reason does still have a place in the Supreme Court of NSW ... Hallelujah.So if we accept that an activity is dangerous and we have been made aware of certain hazards, the courts will reject an unreasonable claim against a party in circumstances where that party made us aware of a the particular hazard particularly where that party trained us in avoiding the hazard.

I understood that the glider - an L13A1, VH-GTE - had a mid-air collision whilst winch-launching, with another glider that was approaching to land. I don't believe the power lines had anything to do with it. I'm still trying to get a copy of that judgement.

 

This precedent is reassuring from the point of view of it being a step backwards from the litigious society syndrome. However, it has most interesting implications in regard to safety regulation of recreational aviation aircraft. If stepping into a type-certificated factory-built recreational aircraft is so inherently dangerous that nobody can obtain redress, where does that leave us with regard to any airworthiness considerations whatsoever? Does this mean it's now open slather for anything that flies for recreation? Think about it.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I understood that the glider - an L13A1, VH-GTE - had a mid-air collision whilst winch-launching, with another glider that was approaching to land. I don't believe the power lines had anything to do with it. I'm still trying to get a copy of that judgement.This precedent is reassuring from the point of view of it being a step backwards from the litigious society syndrome. However, it has most interesting implications in regard to safety regulation of recreational aviation aircraft. If stepping into a type-certificated factory-built recreational aircraft is so inherently dangerous that nobody can obtain redress, where does that leave us with regard to any airworthiness considerations whatsoever? Does this mean it's now open slather for anything that flies for recreation? Think about it.

Interesting point Dafydd,

But isn't this about alleging and establishing negligence. I don't know the details of the case either and my comments were somewhat flippant and based on the very short summary that implied there was a claim for negligence against the gliding club who had trained the members in avoiding a hazard that the members were all aware of. I would have thought an airworthiness matter would be a separate matter where a pilot would rely on certain 'assurances' of airworthiness. I see the two issues as potentially significantly different.

 

 

[David Isaac]

NSW, NSW, NSW ONLY - and in the gliding case, is there an appeal pending?

You bloody old cynic you ..... but ... undeniably you raise a valid point.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

That's a different glider crash. The one you are referring to was late April. Far from having any findings for that one just yet!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Dafydd, you make a good point. I'm not sure what's behind these case decisions, but looking ahead they may force us back into the prescriptive legislation era.

 

Since the reason governments got out of that era, fast was potential liability payouts, then if the trend solidifies we would be looking at some scary regulations which would remove a lot of present participants (e.g. medical standard, self-construction, self-maintenance, self-administration - all liability based)

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Interesting point Dafydd,But isn't this about alleging and establishing negligence. I don't know the details of the case either and my comments were somewhat flippant and based on the very short summary that implied there was a claim for negligence against the gliding club who had trained the members in avoiding a hazard that the members were all aware of. I would have thought an airworthiness matter would be a separate matter where a pilot would rely on certain 'assurances' of airworthiness. I see the two issues as potentially significantly different.

I hope you're right. But the "Inherently dangerous recreational activity" argument, if inappropriately applied, could make insurance useless, and make it impossible to enforce fundamental aircraft safety requirements.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

That's a different glider crash. The one you are referring to was late April. Far from having any findings for that one just yet!

 

Ah- I thought it was extremely fast work! Thanks for the clarification.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I hope you're right. But the "Inherently dangerous recreational activity" argument, if inappropriately applied, could make insurance useless, and make it impossible to enforce fundamental aircraft safety requirements.

Not all insurance useless, I mean in this case the student was a participant had he crashed on someone's roof then I don't see anything changing for the house owner? or have I missed the point?

 

 

[turboplanner]

No Andy, I should have brought that up. In both cases it appears the passenger student's claim is the one being rejected. If a wheel drops off and kills someone - normal situation.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

No Andy, I should have brought that up. In both cases it appears the passenger student's claim is the one being rejected. If a wheel drops off and kills someone - normal situation.

No, I didn't assume it applied to the "Damage by Aircraft" Act. But it certainly affects participants. So I suspect it makes airworthiness standards, type certification, RAA registration, Certificates of Airworthiness, Maintenances Releases etc all merely good for a warm feeling, except for the third party non-participant. So they will continue to be required, and our discussions to date are not rendered irrelevant.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Call for kids to be banned from flying amateur-built planes

 

3AWnews| 5 June, 2013 - 11:36 AM

 

A coroner has called for all children aged 16 and under to be banned from flying in amateur-built and experimental aircraft after a father and son were killed near Mildura.

 

Coroner Jane Hendtlass has recommended the Federal Government and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ban all passengers under the age of 17 from flying in amateur-built, experimental aircraft.

 

The coroner made the recommendations in her findings into the deaths of Cardross man Jack Hender, 49, and his 10-yaer-old son, Sam, who were killed when Mr Hender's light aircraft stalled and crashed while trying to land at Mildura Aerodrome in March 2006 in difficult wind conditions.

 

The coroner said Mr Hender built the light aircraft from a kit, but substantially modified the aircraft which may have meant it was not airworthy certificate compliant.

 

The coroner said the airworthy certificate expired the month before the crash, that Mr Hender should have been aware that he could not take passengers unless for test purposes and that he was trying to land unacceptably close to last light.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Call for kids to be banned from flying amateur-built planes3AWnews| 5 June, 2013 - 11:36 AM

A coroner has called for all children aged 16 and under to be banned from flying in amateur-built and experimental aircraft after a father and son were killed near Mildura.

 

Coroner Jane Hendtlass has recommended the Federal Government and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ban all passengers under the age of 17 from flying in amateur-built, experimental aircraft.

 

The coroner made the recommendations in her findings into the deaths of Cardross man Jack Hender, 49, and his 10-yaer-old son, Sam, who were killed when Mr Hender's light aircraft stalled and crashed while trying to land at Mildura Aerodrome in March 2006 in difficult wind conditions.

 

The coroner said Mr Hender built the light aircraft from a kit, but substantially modified the aircraft which may have meant it was not airworthy certificate compliant.

 

The coroner said the airworthy certificate expired the month before the crash, that Mr Hender should have been aware that he could not take passengers unless for test purposes and that he was trying to land unacceptably close to last light.

Yes, well - remember Michael Flanders (At the drop of a hat): "If God had meant us to fly, he'd never have given us the railways . . ."

 

 

[kaz3g]

The coroner's report on the Hender crash is at

 

http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/397d7c48-1b22-4947-b9ca-9b984f5456a1/johnchristophehender_095006.pdf

 

 

[dazza 38]

With all this doom and gloom, I might give up flying and take up knitting.

 

 

[Oscar]

This is a prime example of why operating an RAA-class aircraft (even though this one was NOT an RAA-class aircraft but a VH-experimental reg. Glassair) needs to strive to avoid being classified as a 'Dangerous Recreational Activity'.

 

While the possible attraction of a softening of the rules and regulations affecting us from such a classification ( including a possible retraction on the part of CASA attention to merely ensuring that we can't harm the general, non-involved public by making sure we don't fly anywhere where we can crash on them) presents itself - think of the alternatives:

 

You might have to have any passenger sign a form that they understand and accept the risks of flying in your aircraft, for every flight;

 

You may not be able to take any passenger deemed to be 'legally incapable' of a responsible decision to fly with you aloft, with possible criminal penalties should you take such a passenger aloft;

 

Your hull insurance is likely to be either drastically more expensive / not available / declared not liable for payout in flying circumstances;

 

ditto your Public Liability insurance;

 

Your recourse to legal remedy in that case of an accident for which the responsibility is palpably that of some provider of goods or services may be reduced / removed.

 

The community appreciai0n of the value of recreational aviation to the community is reduced ('they're just a pack of death-defying loonies') and support for the retention of local community airstrips is reduced;

 

Commercial / governmental / quasi-governmental sponsorship of / assistance to all forms of recreational aviation is diminished;

 

Local authorities are encouraged in applying greater restriction on recreational aviation activity in their area of control.

 

I'm sure I've missed a lot in that list, but it's a start.

 

We have vastly more to lose than to gain by being relegated to the classification of a 'Dangerous Recreational Activity.'

 

 

[David Isaac]

This is all total BS...

 

So if some idiot drives his car down the road and makes a poor decision and kills himself and his son are the coroners now going to say you cant take kids in your car. What planet does the Coroner live on. People do all manner of stupid irresponsible things on the road in cars and motorbikes and in a plethora of other circumstances all day and kill themselves and kill a hell of a lot more innocents. Aircraft accidents rarely ever kill innocents.

 

For Pete's sake can we all take a breath here and have people think logically. How many kids get killed in light aircraft accidents compared to the deaths in all manner of other accidents, so why pick on a single accident six years ago and then attempt to penalise all the flying community because of the actions in error of one person. The last time I remember a father and son incident was some where up near Boonah where a 40 year old and his 10 year old also died in a Quickez from memory when they got caught in a valley due weather and it was around 20 years ago because I remember he was the same age as me and my youngest son son at the time.

 

These type of accidents are rare. You have a better probability of being king hit by some dickhead these days walking down town on a Friday night.

 

This kind of knee jerk reaction just pisses me off to the extreme.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

This is all total BS...So if some idiot drives his car down the road and makes a poor decision and kills himself and his son are the coroners now going to say you cant take kids in your car. What planet does the Coroner live on. People do all manner of stupid irresponsible things on the road in cars and motorbikes and in a plethora of other circumstances all day and kill themselves and kill a hell of a lot more innocents. Aircraft accidents rarely ever kill innocents.

 

For Pete's sake can we all take a breath here and have people think logically. How many kids get killed in light aircraft accidents compared to the deaths in all manner of other accidents, so why pick on a single accident six years ago and then attempt to penalise all the flying community because of the actions in error of one person. The last time I remember a father and son incident was some where up near Boonah where a 40 year old and his 10 year old also died in a Quickez from memory when they got caught in a valley due weather and it was around 20 years ago because I remember he was the same age as me and my youngest son son at the time.

 

These type of accidents are rare. You have a better probability of being king hit by some dickhead these days walking down town on a Friday night.

 

This kind of knee jerk reaction just pisses me off to the extreme.

AMEN. Having read the Coroner's report, I agree the recommendation is nonsensical. It was death by stupidity, aided by weather, as far as I can see. I don't see that the airworthiness of the aircraft had anything to do with it. Evolution in action, so to speak. Pity about the child - but face it, people kill their kids in cars every day of the week - so why is this one getting such a stupid over-reaction? However, the message is obvious: The consequences of the precedent that flying in a recreational aircraft is an inherently dangerous activity will have far-reaching adverse consequences. When it gets to the point where driving your kids to the beach is classified as a "dangerous recreational activity" I suppose reductio ad absurdum will prevail. FFS, Breathing is inherently dangerous, and inevitably fatal in the long run (tho I suppose not a recreational or optional activity). I think the licencing standards for Coroners are in need of review . . .

 

 

[AVOCET]

This is all total BS...So if some idiot drives his car down the road and makes a poor decision and kills himself and his son are the coroners now going to say you cant take kids in your car. What planet does the Coroner live on. People do all manner of stupid irresponsible things on the road in cars and motorbikes and in a plethora of other circumstances all day and kill themselves and kill a hell of a lot more innocents. Aircraft accidents rarely ever kill innocents.

 

For Pete's sake can we all take a breath here and have people think logically. How many kids get killed in light aircraft accidents compared to the deaths in all manner of other accidents, so why pick on a single accident six years ago and then attempt to penalise all the flying community because of the actions in error of one person. The last time I remember a father and son incident was some where up near Boonah where a 40 year old and his 10 year old also died in a Quickez from memory when they got caught in a valley due weather and it was around 20 years ago because I remember he was the same age as me and my youngest son son at the time.

 

These type of accidents are rare. You have a better probability of being king hit by some dickhead these days walking down town on a Friday night.

 

This kind of knee jerk reaction just pisses me off to the extreme.

I spose we could just get rid of lawyers,( now where have I heard that before) ?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I spose we could just get rid of lawyers,( now where have I heard that before) ?

Your name's not Henry, I suppose?

 

 

[AVOCET]

Your name's not Henry, I suppose?

I was thinking of changing my name to Guy forks and succeeding Druidvale from Australia .after all ,all you need is a runway or two , hanger and plane , and a bit of sky to play in ! RIGHT!

 

Although IDE Probly need a lawyer to do the paper work . Kas , are you interested ,

 

Cheers Mike