Am I my Brother's Keeper ? ? ?

[M61A1]

Let's not be calling people lazy though, that is a big generalisation that is very value laden. Someone who works hard and makes enough money to buy off the shelf is hardly lazy; nor is the person who acknowledges their own lack of technical skills and so chooses to pay rather than attempt to learn.

I'm not calling those who work hard enough to buy off the shelf, "lazy", I'm suggesting that it might be those who can't afford it because the won't work either to earn the money, or to build the aircraft. One way or the other it involves effort, what I'm trying to say, don't tell me it's only for the wealthy, there's other ways to get an aircraft besides being loaded.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have got me thinking M61A1. ALL the people I knew with planes years ago were pretty well off and planes then were CHEAP (relatively). Some of them would have a few of them. Farming, Boats and Planes can cost a lot of money, but it is just magic how your money disappears with a plane. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

What sort of planes though? I guess where I'm trying to go with this is that

 

1. Consumers nowadays generally want to buy stuff ready to go, they couldn't be arxed to spend time building stuff.

 

2. Like real estate, you start where you can afford, or you'll be sitting back complaining you can't afford it. An old single seat might not be what you wanted, but it's affordable. So there are choices to be made, do you want to aviate in something slow and ugly, or sit around wishing you were flying something fast and expensive?

 

I can say from personal experience, brought about from the wonderful staff at the Child Support Agency, that flying can be done on a very tight budget, it just might not be flashy. When CSA are involved in your life, the more you earn, the more they take, so despite earning good money, no-one was letting me keep any. I really wanted to fly, so I did everything I could to educate myself, about the flying, manufacture and maintenance, to the point that I now maintain aircraft for a living.

 

In short, I found a way, I made it happen. I had well and truly started my build, when a 95.10 came along on this forum at the right price, plus some effort. I paid the small price and put in the effort, I have an aircraft I can fly whenever I like now.

 

I just don't think it's correct to say that "flying is for the wealthy", it's not, it just might not be as flash as you'd wish.

 

Maybe those that say they can't afford it just don't want it that badly.

 

 

[facthunter]

I do concur with the thrust of your argument. IF you want it enough you will find a way. At one time I spent every penny I had on flying. You do have to be realistic about buying the aircraft though, because once you have got it you are stuck with it to an extent. You don't need the best. It is still being built (somewhere) unless you are flying something like Red Bull. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

mick you should start a club

 

 

[M61A1]

mick you should start a club

Herein lies the problem....people who run/start clubs, are the sort of people who like to boss other people around, and necessarily so, they're "organisers", I'm not one of them. I have enough other people to fly with, assuming that I want others to fly with.

Before anyone has a go about the bossing around comment, have a good hard think about any club you've ever been in...

 

 

[PA.]

I have been President of my motorcycle club for 10 years, I find it's best to let the office bearers do their job without me bossing them around. The Secretary and Treasurer and most of the committee are the same guys for the complete period. Give someone a job, let them do it and then thank them for their effort. It works for me.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Herein lies the problem....people who run/start clubs, are the sort of people who like to boss other people around, and necessarily so, they're "organisers", I'm not one of them. I have enough other people to fly with, assuming that I want others to fly with.Before anyone has a go about the bossing around comment, have a good hard think about any club you've ever been in...

Well i think your right in some cases and completely wrong in others, like most generalisations.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Mick, you'll be a champ!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I would like to think that we are in no way, our brother's keeper, natural selection should be allowed to function, encouraged even.That said, I do realise we live in world where our pitiful media has people convinced that we should all be protected from ourselves, and that people worry about the public perception of what we do, despite it being of no concern of the public at all, providing what we do harms no-one else.

Please understand, when I mention natural selection, it doesn't necessarily mean just sit back and watch what happens. I think that advice can, and should, be given. That includes warning potential victims that may be harmed. The selection bit is what happens when stuff is done despite being warned. Warnings can be verbal from a friend or colleague, or just a close call that should tell you not to do that.

 

Another thing to ask yourself is, "would having a licence, a current medical and maintenance release made a difference?". I suspect that the harsh reality is that it wouldn't, he would've just died with a licence and medical, and passengers killed by a licenced pilot.

 

The sooner society moves away from this idea that we are all responsible for making laws to protect us from ourselves the better off we will be.

 

I watched part of a 60 minutes piece a week ago about people who liked to climb ice waterfalls, despite being exceptionally fit, professional and cautious, the reporter was still trying to convince them that they were insanely reckless, and nothing more than a danger to themselves.

 

The line that grates on me the most from any so called journalist on a slow news week is " are we (as a society) doing enough to stop this kind of behaviour?", usually in regard to someone doing something where he or she is the only one at risk. Let them go, let them learn a lesson, we'll all be better off for it.

 

It just about gives me an aneurysm when I see a cop be interviewed carrying on about risking his life, to stop someone who didn't need stopping, for example: a teenager climbing a building wall.

 

In short, don't worry yourself over it Phil, I very much doubt that anything you or anyone else had to say would have changed the outcome, but there will probably be a politician, journalist or a lawyer somewhere who will try to convince you that somehow it wasn't his fault, but someone else's.

Hi M61. . . .

 

Thanks for the kind thoughts expressed at the end of your very well considered piece, but actually I’m quite happy in my skin after that incident, because, as I mentioned in my post I had NO IDEA what the pilot in question had been doing at his own base,. . .nor the reason behind the fact that he had no aviation medical cert for six years or more, . . .this came out when the smoke had blown over, ie his widow confessed that he had a some type of heart condition, and was worried that this would have stopped him from obtaining a med cert and therefore finished his flying as P1.

 

Should she have been her husband’s keeper ? ? ? I don’t know her, other than a few passing pleasantries at fly-ins and other events , and I have no idea if she had any grasp of the seriousness of flying with a known cardiac problem. It was impossible to carry out a post mortem on the pilot following the accident as the three people were pretty well vaporised by the post impact fire, so we will never know if pilot incapacitation at an inopportune moment was to blame, but a witness said that the aircraft appeared to be “dive bombing” something several times,. . . and then pulling into a very steep climb, the last of which resulted in an apparent stall spin from low level, closing down the main East Coast UK railway line for three days.

 

I just read another one in the latest “Clued – Up” magazine,. . .this is rather like the old DCA “Crash Comic” I used to get in OZ years ago. A bloke purchased an “Out of permit” Trike aircraft, with a Rotax 503 two stroke engine. The aeroplane had been out of permit for a long time, so the CAA had removed it from the register. On the day of the accident, the new owner had taken the machine to a farmer’s field which had a diagonal run of around 275 metres. He was accompanied by an experienced trike pilot who had test flown the aircraft on purchase, and had taken the owner as a rear seat passenger.

 

The owner was assisted in the rigging operation by the experienced guy, and after starting, he taxied it out to the corner of the field and began his takeoff run. The experienced pilot said that it was obvious that the owner had only applied about “Half” power, and it was obvious that it was not going to fly. The power was reduced and the owner taxied back to where the onlookers were standing and the experienced pilot told him that he would need full power in order to take off.

 

The owner then proceeded back to the far corner of the field and applied full power. The machine lifted into the air and adopted a very steep nose – up attitude to an estimated height of around 100 feet. The engine sound then reduced, but the steep upward attitude was maintaind for a few seconds, when the machine stalled, pitched down violently and struck the ground in a near vertical angle. The machine was totally destroyed and the owner was killed on impact.

 

On investigation, no evidence could be found of ANY flight training, either formal or otherwise having ever been undertaken by the owner of the aircraft. What exasperates me, is why did an experienced trike pilot not only allow this to happen, but actively encourage him and collude in the process . . . .? NO Training . . .NO Permit . . .NO Insurance. . . NO registration . . .NO Supervision. . .

 

After carefully examining the wreckage,. . . .AAIB found nothing wrong with the aircraft which could have contributed to the accident

 

The report ends with the “ My Brother’s Keeper” adage too. . . . His Brother, regrettably wasn’t there at the time. [ For full report - google - Gemini Flash 2 Alpha microlight fatal accident Scotland ]

 

Merry Christmas

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I find myself in the unenviable position of having to agree with you Fly - only happens once a year or so There isn't just a lack of community in aviation, there is a lack of it across the board. How many people actively volunteer for social or community groups? Less than there was, if you look at scouting as one example. I'd love to take up gliding, but sadly I can't afford the time to spend whole days and weekends as part of a club, and with gliding it is expected that everyone pitches in.

 

Let's not be calling people lazy though, that is a big generalisation that is very value laden. Someone who works hard and makes enough money to buy off the shelf is hardly lazy; nor is the person who acknowledges their own lack of technical skills and so chooses to pay rather than attempt to learn.

Struth Bandit,. . . . . . I never knew you were a phisolophe. . . .philposfe plosferopo ,.. . . . . . learned man of deep thoughts. . . . . . . . I'm impressed ! ! !

 

 

[facthunter]

I used to be able to spell that word and now YOU have mucked me up. Merry Xmas Phil. osifer.. and ALL.. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

Struth Bandit,. . . . . . I never knew you were a phisolophe. . . .philposfe plosferopo ,.. . . . . . learned man of deep thoughts. . . . . . . . I'm impressed ! ! !

I think this is the one you were after Phil

 

Feel-oesophagul: the visualisation and fantasy of wrapping one's hands around the neck of an internet troll and squeezing gently until the oesophagus is felt.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Perhaps veering slightly back to the topic, I have a fundamental problem with the concept of allowing "self-risk" and that is that the term is an idealistic concept which frequently doesn't end up confined to its strict definition.

 

Eg: That the irresponsible driver may kill himself is not really the greatest concern. That he may kill himself after losing control and ploughing into a carload of children returning from the local kindergarten fete is where it gets costly and very ugly. It's an absolutely sure bet that if he thought of the risk of his actions at all, he only thought of the risk to himself, and not that he might snuff out the lives of some 10 year olds. You can warn the guy all you like when the risk-taking behaviour becomes apparent, but if you keep letting him go out and do it, what is the potential end result and what have you achieved? Nothing, I would suggest, other than to waste some words and stand back as a spectator to watch some tragedy unfold.

 

So yeah, in an ideal world you wouldn't have to be your brother's keeper and it wouldn't be a nanny state. But unfortunately it's not an ideal world. Humans are often foolish and often seem to want to save their superior intellect for a rainy day sometime, so the decision to act or not act has a bit more depth (and consequence) to it.

 

 

[metalman]

The actual answer to the original biblical question is ,by the way, YES!! Just saying!

 

Matty

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Perhaps our greatest challenge is that we can so easily reinforce the prejudices of people outside aviation. One bloke yesterday kept focussing on recent crashes. No amount of polite, informed reasoning would budge him from the firm conviction that the world would be better off without gyrocopters and home-builts.

 

Maybe deep down the poor sad land-bound bugger is jealous of our freedoms.

 

 

[metalman]

Perhaps our greatest challenge is that we can so easily reinforce the prejudices of people outside aviation. One bloke yesterday kept focussing on recent crashes. No amount of polite, informed reasoning would budge him from the firm conviction that the world would be a better off without gyrocopters and home-builts.Maybe deep down the poor sad land-bound bugger is jealous of our freedoms.

Talked to a bloke the other day , gave up flying when Pip Bormann and Phil Moon died, I didn't bother reasoning with him, he'd made his choices ,but I felt for him, allowing fear to guide his life ,

Matty

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I gotta say for me to keep plugging along it is not the continuous stream of accidents that keep happening but the megalomaniacs that want to keep trying to over regulate and dominate my freedoms and enjoyment of flying and drive up the cost.

 

 

[M61A1]

S

 

I have been President of my motorcycle club for 10 years, I find it's best to let the office bearers do their job without me bossing them around. The Secretary and Treasurer and most of the committee are the same guys for the complete period. Give someone a job, let them do it and then thank them for their effort. It works for me.

So, what you're saying is, you told them their job and they did it, .... my point exactly

 

 

[M61A1]

Well i think your right in some cases and completely wrong in others, like most generalisations.

Yes, it is a generalization, I was in a bit of a hurry at th time, but still, I've never seen any kind of club that doesn't have a few people jumping up and down trying to convince everyone that we should be doing what they want. Have a trawl through the governing bodies section, you will find various people pushing for different things. You may recall that I said it was a necessary thing for a club to function, and it was that I'm just not interested in that (starting a club).

 

 

[PA.]

SSo, what you're saying is, you told them their job and they did it, .... my point exactly

The Treasurer does the Treasurer job, the Secretary does the Secretary job. I don't tell them to do anything, they just do what the position requires, which is what I do as President.

Worst type of President is one who tries to do everything them self and does not let the office bearers do the job they accepted.

 

 

[M61A1]

The Treasurer does the Treasurer job, the Secretary does the Secretary job. I don't tell them to do anything, they just do what the position requires, which is what I do as President.Worst type of President is one who tries to do everything them self and does not let the office bearers do the job they accepted.

And those types are there, in pretty much any organization. The club that runs smoothly, is the exception I would reckon. In any case, as I said, these types are necessary for a club to run, you need people who like to delegate, and because I'm not one of them, I have no interest in forming a club, and I believe FT's comment was rather tongue in cheek, as was my response.

 

 

[M61A1]

Perhaps veering slightly back to the topic, I have a fundamental problem with the concept of allowing "self-risk" and that is that the term is an idealistic concept which frequently doesn't end up confined to its strict definition.Eg: That the irresponsible driver may kill himself is not really the greatest concern. That he may kill himself after losing control and ploughing into a carload of children returning from the local kindergarten fete is where it gets costly and very ugly. It's an absolutely sure bet that if he thought of the risk of his actions at all, he only thought of the risk to himself, and not that he might snuff out the lives of some 10 year olds. You can warn the guy all you like when the risk-taking behaviour becomes apparent, but if you keep letting him go out and do it, what is the potential end result and what have you achieved? Nothing, I would suggest, other than to waste some words and stand back as a spectator to watch some tragedy unfold.

 

So yeah, in an ideal world you wouldn't have to be your brother's keeper and it wouldn't be a nanny state. But unfortunately it's not an ideal world. Humans are often foolish and often seem to want to save their superior intellect for a rainy day sometime, so the decision to act or not act has a bit more depth (and consequence) to it.

One of the fundamental bits of recreational aviation was the concept of "self risk". The idea was that we play with our toys away from the general public, and that any passengers are well informed of the risk involved. I realise that when the push for more of the GA type privileges happens, we get more of the GA type responsibilities. We're not supposed to be flying tonnes of metal over the general public.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I can't make the connection between a car spearing into a bunch of toddlers, and a pilot and his well informed passenger spudding in while being silly miles from anyone in their ultralight. I do understand that the incident in question regards an unlicensed GA pilot, in an unairworthy (technically) aircraft, doing illegal things, but, as he was breaking the law when it happened, so I don't see how any further legislation could or would prevent such an incident occurring again. Even on the roads, these sort of incidents, (unlicensed, unregistered and operated stupidly) are fairly regular.

 

 

[facthunter]

Aware of the risk might be closer to the concept. That is what the placards on the panel are for. Also limiting the carriage to the pilot and ONE INFORMED passenger seems to make the position clear. I have NEVER advocated flying IN controlled airspace except to cross it under prescribed conditions for safety and limited access.. Nor NVFR (which I don't agree with for single engined aircraft.) Don't forget the increase to 762 Kgs was CASA's figure. IF you want to fly two people in an RAAus plane, legally you have to consider the revision of the permitted AUW as flying aircraft over the design weight is extremely foolish, very illegal and unfair to other users of the plane. I can't see that this requires an increase in stall speed unless you are considering an EXISTING aircraft that is already close to the 45 Kt limit. and has the structural strength to go to the higher weight already.. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

One of the fundamental bits of recreational aviation was the concept of "self risk". The idea was that we play with our toys away from the general public, and that any passengers are well informed of the risk involved.

Having a wife who is a medical doctor I would suggest that aviation in general (not limiting myself to RA here) has no idea of the concept of what "well-informed of the risk" really means. Don't get me wrong - I hope aviation doesn't go the way of medicine otherwise no-one will be taking anyone flying without a half hour discussion of risk ratios that would satisfy a "Rogers v Whitaker" situation (the Australian High Court case which severely affected the medical world here regarding informed risk and consent). But I doubt that there are actually any non-pilot passengers anywhere who would be considered "well-informed" of the risks in the truest sense.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I can't make the connection between a car spearing into a bunch of toddlers, and a pilot and his well informed passenger spudding in while being silly miles from anyone in their ultralight. I do understand that the incident in question regards an unlicensed GA pilot, in an unairworthy (technically) aircraft, doing illegal things, but, as he was breaking the law when it happened, so I don't see how any further legislation could or would prevent such an incident occurring again. Even on the roads, these sort of incidents, (unlicensed, unregistered and operated stupidly) are fairly regular.

I should clarify that the example I created was simply for illustration of the logic of regulating certain activities. The regs give people who are thinking of being stupid something to seriously consider, and more importantly, a consequence for continuing on their current path. I didn't really intend for a direct connection with ultralight flying. You're quite right in arguing that further legislation wouldn't prevent an incident involving someone disregarding the current regs, but that's not really my point. My argument is really about the unfortunate and regrettable need for regulations which restrict our absolute freedom in the first place. The real debate lies with "how much is too much?" and that's a very wide-ranging and complicated argument. I agree that some regs are a bit ridiculous, but also that others are necessary and sensible.