TIF or Joyflight?

[turboplanner]

I also know Nong is a good operator when he is not being a Nong and antagonising our Insurers.

 

 

[skeptic36]

Nong, I once took a TIF with you. In it you walked me through many aspects of flying, you showed me the primary and secondary effects of controls. You let me take control. You even showed me how to find the wind direction from ripples on dams. It was great...I got a lot of joy out of the flight!

If that's the way you conduct all your TIFs then you have absolutely nothing to worry about!

So you take away Nong's opportunity to earn a dollar doing what he always does only now he has to give the potential customer a lie detector test to find out if he/she really may want to learn to fly or if they are just after the joy flight experience. Now his business might become unviable and you may have to travel a lot further to get the lessons you need to become a pilot yourself.

Change the rule!

 

Turbo, just wondering do you have a financial interest in any G.A operations offering joy flights?

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[turboplanner]

So you take away Nong's opportunity to earn a dollar doing what he always does only now he has to give the potential customer a lie detector test to find out if he/she really may want to learn to fly or if they are just after the joy flight experience. Now his business might become unviable and you may have to travel a lot further to get the lessons you need to become a pilot yourself.Change the rule!

Turbo, just wondering do you have a financial interest in any G.A operations offering joy flights?

 

Regards Bill

The second question is just plain idiotic, because it doesn't take much research, or as I've recommended three or four times to spend an hour with a Public Liability lawyer like Slater and Gordon, Maurice Blackburne, Shine (Erin Brockovich), or many others to realise your assets and freedom are very much at risk when you are culpably negligent and it doesn't take much to find the definition of negligence either, but the answer is that I have no financial or management interests either in GA operations offering joy flights, or as I have been accused of previously, Public Liability Insurers. I have had direct and indeirect experience though with the heartache of people who didn't realise it could happen to them, and others who lost loved ones.

 

As far as taking away anyone's opportunity to earn a dollar, the answer to that is also out there - there are no financial interests which justify injuring or killing someone.

 

Take deaths caused by inadequate brakes - Australian manufacturers argued against change and are now virtually all out of the business.

 

Take Nox and Particulate emissions both of which cause cancer and have killed thousands in Aust - the financial burden was no excuse - we probably pay around $20,000 per vehicle to reduce them by around 97%.

 

You don't seem to have any morals about ripping business off the people who ARE authorised to conduct commercial operations though.

 

 

[Yenn]

It would be more relevent yo most of us to discuss the pitfalls with giving a joy flight to a friend, either 50% cost share or a free flight.

 

I have given many free flights to friends and also some shared cost flights, where there were longer distances involved.

 

If I was unfortunate enough to have an accident, I wonder how much clout those warning signs would have.

 

 

[skeptic36]

The second question is just plain idiotic, because it doesn't take much research, or as I've recommended three or four times to spend an hour with a Public Liability lawyer like Slater and Gordon, Maurice Blackburne, Shine (Erin Brockovich), or many others to realise your assets and freedom are very much at risk when you are culpably negligent and it doesn't take much to find the definition of negligence either, but the answer is that I have no financial or management interests either in GA operations offering joy flights, or as I have been accused of previously, Public Liability Insurers. I have had direct and indeirect experience though with the heartache of people who didn't realise it could happen to them, and others who lost loved ones.As far as taking away anyone's opportunity to earn a dollar, the answer to that is also out there - there are no financial interests which justify injuring or killing someone.

 

Take deaths caused by inadequate brakes - Australian manufacturers argued against change and are now virtually all out of the business.

 

Take Nox and Particulate emissions both of which cause cancer and have killed thousands in Aust - the financial burden was no excuse - we probably pay around $20,000 per vehicle to reduce them by around 97%.

 

You don't seem to have any morals about ripping business off the people who ARE authorised to conduct commercial operations though.

Sorry for being so plainly idiotic sir, its just that I have trouble believing that someone could be so benevolent without an ulterior motive as to be continually trying to frighten recreational aviators into staying indoors for fear of losing the house they shouldn't leave. I guess I should have more faith in my fellow human beings.

 

I don't know why you consider it more likely somebody will die in the same aircraft with the same pic flying from the same facility if said flight is a joy flight rather than a trial instructional flight. If this is really the case why aren't you campaigning to shut down recreational instructing all together? Or maybe that is your ultimate goal?

 

I personally don't have any moral issues about who is getting the business because it sure isn't me. Also I don't believe there would be much business lost from the G.A world due to the price difference. And before you start on about the reasons for the price difference, I believe people can clearly see the difference between an open cockpit Gyro or a Trike, and a G.A aircraft, when standing next to it and should be able to make a decision about whether or not the price difference is worth the risk difference. Nobody has a gun held at their head saying get in there or else..........

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[Powerin]

So you take away Nong's opportunity to earn a dollar doing what he always does only now he has to give the potential customer a lie detector test to find out if he/she really may want to learn to fly or if they are just after the joy flight experience. Now his business might become unviable and you may have to travel a lot further to get the lessons you need to become a pilot yourself.Change the rule!

Regards Bill

No Bill, nong doesn't advertise his TIFs as scenic rides. As far as I know he does the right thing and makes money within the rules. Most schools do. Those few that do bend/break the rules are just going to make things worse for everybody else. There is far more danger of schools becoming unviable from ever increasing regulations because of a few that are trying to take advantage. Someone has died doing a TIF. Questions will be asked. CASA is already keeping a close eye on RAAus, do we really want to poke the hornets nest?

 

There's a whole lot of rules I could bend or break to make more money too. But I doubt you would like me to be using illegal chemicals on my crops or livestock, that you may eat one day, for example?

 

Deepest apologies to nong if he takes offence at me using him as an example.

 

 

[djpacro]

Just not fair is it.

 

We should all be allowed to fly the operation that we want.

 

All to the same rules obviously. There should be no exemptions - just appropriate rules applying to specific operations.

 

I used to do a bit of work or a flying school that also had a charter licence so did joyflights. Sometimes the few aircraft approved for charter were not available. They were set up with the extra equipment required for charter, extra maintenance costs (specifically engine calendar time) and the higher insurance costs. The punters would be offered a TIF instead and some would ask what was different. It seemed to me that I was one of the few pilots who made it clear that on a TIF they had nil insurance. They would not be a passenger so in case of an accident the insurance for the passenger was not available. They would be a student pilot so part of the crew - no insurance cover.

 

Some time back I got sick of doing the regular additional training courses required to be PIC of a charter flight. Meanwhile my friend did adventure flights in his Yak with none of the same onerous requirements.

 

Few punters think about insurance at the time.

 

After an accident their relatives take an entirely different view of things.

 

I look forward to the new CASA regs when I may do limited instruction on a PPL with Class 2 medical. But I can't do ab initio training for the new recreational licence without maintaining my CPL, Class 1 medical and a CASA approved flying school.

 

 

[Powerin]

It would be more relevent yo most of us to discuss the pitfalls with giving a joy flight to a friend, either 50% cost share or a free flight.I have given many free flights to friends and also some shared cost flights, where there were longer distances involved.

If I was unfortunate enough to have an accident, I wonder how much clout those warning signs would have.

No problems. That's completely legal! As long as you equally (or less) share the costs with the pax and you don't use the flight to make money. If you have the warning placards you have satisfied the rules too and RAAus have a photo of them to prove that they are there.

 

 

[104chocks]

• ""The death has occurred of an overseas tourist whilst on a TIF. (If I were a coroner that would be raising a few question marks for a start)
   
   
  
• The school involved ADVERTISED "Scenic TIFs". (The plot thickens)
   
   
  
• A coroner WILL get involved.
   
   
  
• I'm willing to bet someone will get sued.""
   
   
  

 

 

 

All good points - this double fatal gyrocopter accident is of interest outside of Australia - I understand the passenger was from Singapore - the Singapore embassy will have an eye on the progress of the investigation and any subsequent liability issues. CASA will be under some scrutiny from home and abroad and will likely be leaning on ASRA to raise standards.

 

 

[Yenn]

I know giving flights to friends is not illegal, I was wondering where we stood as far as being sued, even with all the warning notices.

 

 

[Zibi]

I don't know why you consider it more likely somebody will die in the same aircraft with the same pic flying from the same facility if said flight is a joy flight rather than a trial instructional flight. If this is really the case why aren't you campaigning to shut down recreational instructing all together? Or maybe that is your ultimate goal?

I wouldn't take it as being more likely to die but more about the approach of the customers.

When you go on a TIF you become a member of RAA (or other organization) and should be familiarized with the risks involved of taking up flying as a recreational activity.

 

And thus it is up to you if you want to accept that risk and still go or maybe stay on the ground (just like every one of us does when we go flying on our own).

 

When you take a joyflight (or however you want to name it) you're expecting it to be more like a tour on a bus, where you just buy a ticket and expect everything to be in top shape, and if it isn't you have every possible right to sue the person that is at fault. I don't want to talk for everyone, but if I was to pay for a joyflight I would expect there to be some sort of supervising agency (CASA) that would make sure that the plane is in good working order and so are the pilots.

 

Whereas when I went on my RAA TIF it was explained to me what freedoms RAA alows with regards to the planes, that the aircraft isn't certified to the same level as the commercial ones, that it is maintained by the owner, etc.

 

As to the time on controls, vs viewing the scenery - when I went on my TIF it was my first ever flight in a tirke, or any open cockpit aircraft (the smallest thing I flew before that was some 10 or 12 seater that flew between Cairns and Lockhart River) so wasn't important to me how exactly you control it, it was more about the sensation of flying (so in my book a person not focused on learning is just fine).

 

The same goes for tourists - in many countries flying isn't as popular or as visible (or should I say accessible) to general public as it is in Australia, so if anyone wants to try it out while on holidays, to continue doing it at home - why not. Or as it was in my case - it may be a person on a temporary visa that wants to fly in Australia with a RAA certificate.

 

 

[Powerin]

I know giving flights to friends is not illegal, I was wondering where we stood as far as being sued, even with all the warning notices.

That's where the third party insurance included with your membership comes in. You are covered for up to $250,000 for a claim against you by a passenger (which isn't a lot when you think about it).

 

 

[kgwilson]

Aarrggh everyone is thinking inside the box.

 

1. We are over regulated.

 

2. Lawyers are all there rubbing their hands in anticipation of the huge fees they will gain from both the defence & prosecution of any perceived failure to observe the rules & regulations so poorly legislated by the pathetic vote seeking bunch of dickheads called our government.

 

Did you know that in NZ they legislated out the right to sue by creating something called Accident Compensation & there are maximums for all types of originally sue-able things. It has its problems too but for the most part it works.

 

Our politicians & lawyers have been watching too much American TV & it has infected our society. We all need to think OUT SIDE the box.

 

Go for a trip to the US or NZ to find out how easy it is to fly (or have a tif or joyflight) compared to here.

 

If Abbot has one thing right it is the idea of getting rid of the ridiculous amount of regulation imposed on us all.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

That's where the third party insurance included with your membership comes in. You are covered for up to $250,000 for a claim against you by a passenger (which isn't a lot when you think about it).

Yes, the 250 k goes to the lawyers only. I guess that the estate of the passenger would be looking for a dollar or two besides this.

 

Perhaps prudent to increase cover for liability

 

Phil

 

 

[turboplanner]

Aarrggh everyone is thinking inside the box.1. We are over regulated.

 

2. Lawyers are all there rubbing their hands in anticipation of the huge fees they will gain from both the defence & prosecution of any perceived failure to observe the rules & regulations so poorly legislated by the pathetic vote seeking bunch of dickheads called our government.

 

Did you know that in NZ they legislated out the right to sue by creating something called Accident Compensation & there are maximums for all types of originally sue-able things. It has its problems too but for the most part it works.

 

Our politicians & lawyers have been watching too much American TV & it has infected our society. We all need to think OUT SIDE the box.

 

Go for a trip to the US or NZ to find out how easy it is to fly (or have a tif or joyflight) compared to here.

 

If Abbot has one thing right it is the idea of getting rid of the ridiculous amount of regulation imposed on us all.

Our current public liability history in its present form is based on the original Scottish case Donoghue vs Stevenson, and the impetus came from a double Kindergarten fatality in the State of South Australia.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I had first hand knowledge of the NZ Accident Compensation

 

As I was badly burnt, due to thick headed people refusing to put safety guards were the operator wants it. Three weeks basic pay by the company, 1 month pay by the Accident Compensation commission, and if not fit to return to work, your on the DOLE,

 

I hope they never bring it here, to ruin a worker's life.

 

SPACESAILOR

 

 

[turboplanner]

In the forum discussions on this so far there hasn't been much interest in how the victims would cope without the Australian system.

 

For example, if a wife buys her 30 yo husband a joy flight for his birthday and he's killed due to negligence, someone has to find the 40 - 45 yearss income the husband would have provided. This usually adds up to around $1 to $2 million.

 

If he is made a quadriplegic the house will have to be rebuilt, permits and all, ramps and doors fitted to allow a prone trolley free access, a vehicle bought for the same, breathing apparatus with backup supply,generator for auxiliary power supply, 24 hour nurses on shift, daily transport to a suitable pool, special food and it goes on and on, and although in this case the life expectancy will be much shorter, the cost will run out to around $6 to $8 million.

 

People who infer that the $200,000 RAA policy is all you need are in la la land. In fact, in the cases I've been involved in this would just create a side-fight. The first thing we learned is that your own industry-skilled lawyer is a spectator and is usually told to butt out by the Insurer's lawyers. With a second insurer on the case there will be two different motives in minimising cost and that's a bit like committee decisions - a very muddy pitch.

 

We had a similar experience in NZ when my wife caught the sole of her shoe on a step with an undercut at an air museum, and split her knee cap in two. By the time I got back the next day the undercut had been ground off, but I had a photo. In Australia, we would have been fully covered for out of pocket expenses, but in NZ after travel insurance paid for some medical we finished up out of pocket by between $5000.00 and $7000.00, and expensive holiday!

 

 

[poteroo]

I've been reading this thread from the start, and agree with many of the points made.

 

 

 

RAAus pilots should not fear the wrath of the regulator if they follow the rules. But trying to wriggle between the lines is likely to attract the regulators attention.

 

 

 

RAAus cannot do any flying, or make any offer to do so, which borders on a 'commercial' operation - other than flight instruction. Only a qualified, and current instructor, working out of a 'current' RAAus FTF, can offer instruction. CAR's do not allow for passengers to handle the controls unless the flight is instructional - applies in GA as well.

 

 

 

At our FTF you receive your TIF in the same format as you'd do Lesson 10, ie, briefing-flight-debrief. Sign the tempo member slip and also the daily flight sheet and participate in the pre-flight. Receive the typical student in cockpit brief again about handover/takeover. It's 'hands-on' all the way for the prospect - especially the takeoff. Should the 'trial' student wish to happysnap during the flight - that's incidental to the primary mission. We take the view that it's really the initial flight of someones' career or hobby. If they change their mind later - then that's unfortunate, but has no effect on what they have received for their outlay. The TIF recipient has been an 'informed' participant, (crew), in the TIF

 

 

 

On the other hand, 3 people alight from a vehicle and ask if they can do a scenic flight around the coastline. We put on our GA hat. This is a charter flight, and we use a GA aircraft, flown by a CPL who is medically current, proficiency checked, DG certificated, and within flight & duty times. The aircraft is in charter category, maintained to this level, and insured for this use. We need a flight plan and sartime for the flight. Pax are briefed before,and after loading. And that's why it costs so much! The public wants safety and accountability in these flights, and because they are essentially 'non-informed' participants this is entirely reasonable.

 

 

 

happy days,

 

 

[Chocolate]

Quote : we put on our GA hat. meaning the only difference in the safety of the flights is ..what? different cap.?

 

so you went up under a whole set of rules designed for RPT. that didnt make the flight safer. the scenic side is completely over regulated at great cost to the public and the aviation industry as a whole. IMHO. the GA industry (scenics, utility, charter) stagnated because of over regulation and the costs that entails. seems recreational is next in line for over regulation.

 

solution : set of guidelines like USA would be something like... register your scenic flight activity online. the online form tick a box to say

 

route to be flown,

 

VFR tick,

 

take off and return to departure pt within 50 nm radius tick,

 

will not be entering CTA tick,

 

less than say 6 pax tick,

 

no higher than xx tick,

 

transponder and radio on board tick.

 

tick boxes..print or save to ipad. .end of story.

 

result : enjoy flying, have happy pax paying a reasonable price, vibrant aviation industry. young pilots with a decent paying entry and progression path. you know..that aussie edge over the rest of the world, innovation, work ethic, etcc cannot be legislated but legislation can certainly suppress it.

 

 

[poteroo]

Quote : we put on our GA hat. meaning the only difference in the safety of the flights is ..what? different cap.? so you went up under a whole set of rules designed for RPT. that didnt make the flight safer. the scenic side is completely over regulated at great cost to the public and the aviation industry as a whole. IMHO. the GA industry (scenics, utility, charter) stagnated because of over regulation and the costs that entails. seems recreational is next in line for over regulation.

 

solution : set of guidelines like USA would be something like... register your scenic flight activity online. the online form tick a box to say

 

route to be flown,

 

VFR tick,

 

take off and return to departure pt within 50 nm radius tick,

 

will not be entering CTA tick,

 

less than say 6 pax tick,

 

no higher than xx tick,

 

transponder and radio on board tick.

 

tick boxes..print or save to ipad. .end of story.

 

result : enjoy flying, have happy pax paying a reasonable price, vibrant aviation industry. young pilots with a decent paying entry and progression path. you know..that aussie edge over the rest of the world, innovation, work ethic, etcc cannot be legislated but legislation can certainly suppress it.

Well, when we are discussing a TIF under RAAus, compared to a GA scenic - yes, there is a different 'cap' - in theory anyway. As the same person may be doing both - of course both flights will be flown to the personal standard of the pilot. With instruction as well, I have no different approach in RAAus or GA - the only difference is in the paperwork really.

 

 

 

The issue of 'scenics' as opposed to outright charter is already under discussion with CASA. Yes, we all want it separated out, and treated quite differently to IFR charter in a twin, for example. I agree - we are over-regulated, but it's difficult to break the chains because of the regulators 'safety' influence over public and pollie opinion.

 

 

 

happy days,

 

 

[kgwilson]

In the forum discussions on this so far there hasn't been much interest in how the victims would cope without the Australian system.For example, if a wife buys her 30 yo husband a joy flight for his birthday and he's killed due to negligence, someone has to find the 40 - 45 yearss income the husband would have provided. This usually adds up to around $1 to $2 million.

 

If he is made a quadriplegic the house will have to be rebuilt, permits and all, ramps and doors fitted to allow a prone trolley free access, a vehicle bought for the same, breathing apparatus with backup supply,generator for auxiliary power supply, 24 hour nurses on shift, daily transport to a suitable pool, special food and it goes on and on, and although in this case the life expectancy will be much shorter, the cost will run out to around $6 to $8 million.

 

We had a similar experience in NZ when my wife caught the sole of her shoe on a step with an undercut at an air museum, and split her knee cap in two. By the time I got back the next day the undercut had been ground off, but I had a photo. In Australia, we would have been fully covered for out of pocket expenses, but in NZ after travel insurance paid for some medical we finished up out of pocket by between $5000.00 and $7000.00, and expensive holiday!

How many 30 year old wives don't work & if they don't it is usually because of a young family. Most return to the workforce once kids are off to school so your assertion is based on an old ideal which is rare in today's society.

 

The huge sums required for major injuries are certainly real & these would only be covered if you have your own insurance policy. In NZ these are covered by the ACC but the funds available are not unlimited. ACC also covers personal injuries & sports injuries. You are assessed for a %age disability after the initial medical side has been dealt with. I broke my arm hang gliding back in the 80s & went through the process. It cost me nothing & I eventually got a lump sum payment for a small disability which I have learned to live with. The sums are much less that the multi million dollar claims by lawsuits but it keeps things in perspective. All companies have to pay the levies but the system covers everyone, except foreigners.

 

What annoys me about our system is the Law firms that advertise, promoting people to claim for something they may not normally claim for on a "No Win No Cost" basis. This happened to a friend whose 14 year old very placid dog was tied up outside a community centre & a woman with arthritis walked into it & fell down. My friend took her to the doctor & she even re-iterated she was OK at the time. The dog died a few months later & after 2 years my friend was served with a $200,000.00 claim from one of the leach lawyers stating the dog lunged at the woman & caused all these injuries etc. It ended up with my friend having to get a lawyer who was completely useless but charged her $6000.00 & then the claim was settled out of court (as 90% of them are) for $20,000.00 which she had to borrow from her ageing Mother. These sorts of rorts happen all the time & that is what really irks me.

 

As for an accident in NZ, foreign nationals need to have adequate travel insurance. Yours was obviously not that extensive.

 

 

[Chocolate]

Kgwilson , yes insurance leaches are an issue. however, watch out you don't get distracted by the insurance bogeyman. It's easy to get waylaid from a discussion by the but what if.. The facts are for this thread discussion that a person went on a supposed tif that would be better described as a scenic flight. This happened imho because we are so over regulated ie it costs way too much to meet the legislative requirements, as they are RPT gold standard. so all sorts of adapt and innovate wording gets tossed about. and this is only the tip of the iceberg of the dodgy word twisting of charter, aerial work, pvt v commercial story.

 

what do i want ...a pilot training and aircraft maintenance standard appropriate to the likely risks of a scenic flight. to go and make a few dollars to meet the costs of flying. passengers to be educated that flight has some level of risk to their personal safety (like everything in every second of life), so accept the risk and fly or not. .sign waiver here. appropriate regs and oversight..ie very little needed in the case of scenics that meetr xyz parameters.

 

i ride horses, and when i got to an ag show i sign a waiver acknowledging there is some risk in riding horses. ag shows then dont have to pay exhorbitant insurance rates. imho scenics should be the same.

 

casa is made up of people trying to do their best for aviation. the casa people have some influence over pollies but i can assure you a pollies constituants have far more say over what happens than a public servants views.

 

casa did put out a disussion paper on scenics about two years ago. . last time i check about six months ago it had been put on the backburner and now with a review in progress (read organisation in paralysis mode..oh we cant do blah blah anything new cause we are under review) i dont expect it to see light of day for years to come. int the meantime we will continue to have poor risk management of rec and ga activities, over regulation, high compliance costs, slow death by age attrition of rec and GA industry.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you relate to compliance , then the issue is with the "privileges" of the PPL and the need for a CPL for making money, with Aviation Activity.. I feel there is a clear delineation and that is the sticking point. The qualifications for an RAAus instructor are a concession. U/L qualifications are not recognised internationally as they are outside ICAO standards. Certain Licences have written on them "This LICENCE meets ICAO Standards". The RAAus CERTIFICATE is something else. Regardless of what you may WISH for and what you see as unjust, silly or whatever, these FACTS are important at LAW.. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

....snip, snip, snip

 

i ride horses, and when i got to an ag show i sign a waiver acknowledging there is some risk in riding horses. ag shows then dont have to pay exhorbitant insurance rates. imho scenics should be the same.

 

snip, snip, snip

 

......

People in the plane or on the drome "might" be covered under some dangerous activity waver. Members of the public under our flights - in the open, in their homes, at work, kids in schools or at the park, sitting on the beach doing things totally unrelated to aviation and perhaps many kms from a drome can't be swept up under any waiver and these have every right to have damages and inconvenience caused to them by others fixed.

 

This is the reason for insurance premiums being greater than zero. Even after one has paid the policy insurance companies will do everything to mitigate their costs which is why they are sometimes frequently seen as extortionate bastards. However, it is all a bit like travel insurance, if you can't afford the insurance don't go.

 

 

[Yenn]

Can't say CASA has oversight. They stuffed up well and truly when Barry Hempel took someone on a joy flight. I can't recall hearing the final report on it, but he was not a CPL and was doing joy flights, seemingly with CASA turning a blind eye. But maybe the fatality was caused by the passengers camera?