Report of 'Light Aircraft' on fire near Gatton

[facthunter]

No.. It's your mother's fault. You didn't ask to be born. Right?.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ergo, if I subsequently fail to fly safely, it's RAA's fault.(Isn't that where Dutchy was coming from?)

I don't think so, I thing he was suggesting RAA be proactive and clamp down on the irresponsible element.

 

It's not necessarily just "RAA's fault", and people are still regurgitating that someone should be responsible for his actions (which he still is, and never wasn't)

 

If someone can prove you owed a duty of care and breached it they may come after you.

 

If they can prove your instructor owed a duty of care and breached it they may come after your instructor.

 

If they can prove RAA owed a duty of care and breached it they may come after RAA

 

I've put cases on this thread where they come up in the new media to show how things can work. http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/public-liability.41456/

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Tubs

 

When that guy in Vic was swooping down over the boats on one of the dam's near Albury I don't recall anyone arguing that Uh Oh RAAus is in trouble, in that case as I recall the aircraft was unregistered, but previously RAAus registered, and the guy flying had a student license, or was, or previously was, an RAAus student.

 

So between that case, and this case the differences are:-

 

1) The pilot killed himself here, in that case he pranged but did not kill himself and was rescued.

 

2) in both cases the aircraft was severely damaged/written off

 

3) in both cases no 3rd party person or goods were hurt (in that case much more by good luck than intent it seems)

 

4) in that case he was not authorised to act as PIC of any aircraft including the one he flew. In this case he was authorised to be PIC, but not of the aircraft he flew

 

5) in both cases the manoeuvres were, or were reported to be, bordering on being Acrobatic and in both cases neither PIC was authorised for Acrobatics at any height.

 

So, there are differences, but in the main there are more similarities, so I wonder why similar calls weren't made back then? Was it because in that other one he lived and therefore no one lost someone?

 

Ultimately despite all that, if RAAus and/or the board members found themselves defending a claim for damages then there is another plaintiff here that is the elephant in the room and that's the RAAus insurance company. By now they would be experts in litigating such claims and mitigating their risk exposure, it may well be that it is to RAAus benefit through policy cost reduction that RAAus and the insurer hold a risk mitigation review and as you say, generate documents and policy's that once enacted do reduce our total exposure.

 

 

[turboplanner]

TubsWhen that guy in Vic was swooping down over the boats on one of the dam's near Albury I don't recall anyone arguing that Uh Oh RAAus is in trouble, in that case as I recall the aircraft was unregistered, but previously RAAus registered, and the guy flying had a student license, or was, or previously was, an RAAus student.

 

So between that case, and this case the differences are:-

 

1) The pilot killed himself here, in that case he pranged but did not kill himself and was rescued.

 

2) in both cases the aircraft was severely damaged/written off

 

3) in both cases no 3rd party person or goods were hurt (in that case much more by good luck than intent it seems)

 

4) in that case he was not authorised to act as PIC of any aircraft including the one he flew. In this case he was authorised to be PIC, but not of the aircraft he flew

 

5) in both cases the manoeuvres were, or were reported to be, bordering on being Acrobatic and in both cases neither PIC was authorised for Acrobatics at any height.

 

So, there are differences, but in the main there are more similarities, so I wonder why similar calls weren't made back then? Was it because in that other one he lived and therefore no one lost someone?

 

Ultimately despite all that, if RAAus and/or the board members found themselves defending a claim for damages then there is another plaintiff here that is the elephant in the room and that's the RAAus insurance company. By now they would be experts in litigating such claims and mitigating their risk exposure, it may well be that it is to RAAus benefit through policy cost reduction that RAAus and the insurer hold a risk mitigation review and as you say, generate documents and policy's that once enacted do reduce our total exposure.

As I recall some dust was raised then and RAA took the position that the pilot was unlicensed, the aircraft was unregistered, so it was nothing to do with them

 

If the person had built his own aircraft and trained himself to fly there might be some truth in that.

 

The only "call" I'm aware of has been a suggestion that RAA become proactive as mentioned above, but certainly similar behaviour deserves a similar reaction by the appropriate body.

 

If there is a claim against RAA, then in reality the claim is against the insurer because he is going to be the one who defends the case and if necessary pays out.

 

I've previously mentioned a case where our insurer got a court order to seize our records, disregarded our very experienced lawyer's strategy based on the driver's illegal vehicle, and eventually settled out of court for over $800,000.00 for an injury to a limb. So this subject you raised can get very interesting.

 

I've also mentioned how we worked so closely with our insurers that they flew us to the USA to do the track inspections on their tracks.

 

So your suggestion is a good one, and I would suggest they do hold a risk mitigation seminar and that they bring along their lawyers to advise. What you might then get is a list of the Oh Sh$t moments from the meeting as an agenda to minimise risk, which might not only save some lives and injuries, but secure the life of RAA, so very good point!

 

 

[reggie]

Maybe we should be going after the deceased pilots family, they had a duty of care. Maybe they should have done something? I'm sure they haven't been through enough grief yet so why don't we fry them first. Then we can all go home to sleep and all feel really happy with ourselves.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What duty of care would they have had?

 

 

[poteroo]

It was an RAAus licensed pilot. This implies that he was RAAus trained.That an RAAus licensed and trained pilot was flying a type for which he was not qualified, and for the icing on the cake was doing something really stupid, makes it become an RAAus issue to consider whether RAAus likes it or not.

 

This is not the same thing as directly "blaming" the RAAus. This is saying "hey, one of your boys killed himself doing something both illegal and dumb". I would think that the safety people within the organisation would take a look at this and say "well even if we don't mention it directly, it would be nice if our people learn some lessons from this". At least that's what any other aircraft safety organisation would do.

 

You can't just wash away the issues of pilots trained in your own organisation by saying "oh yeah well the aircraft wasn't registered to us so none of that matters". The SAAA doesn't do it. The EAA doesn't do it. The big boys don't do it.

 

A CASA problem? The cause of the accident had nothing to do with the aircraft type and had everything to do with the "pilot in command". That it was VH registered was incidental! And CASA may well make it your problem if that type of thing continues to happen!

I have to agree in principle. The chain of responsibility can lead right back to day 1 of a pilots' training. The instructor is really responsible for each pilot they train. That may actually not be tested for 20 years or more - until pilot does something really stupid. Then it's a question of attitude or skill. Whether the regulator or the courts decide to actually determine the instructors liability is only a guess. I can give you an example:

 

I trained a CPL in low level for mustering endo. He subsequently crashed. CASA on blower: Q - how well did you train joe blogs? A - to competency in low level

 

Q2 - did you train him in fuel management? A - I explained that you have a higher fuel burn at low level Q - did he understand this A - perfectly...so where is this leading? CASA - nowhere, we're just checking. Presumably they also checked his CPL school in respect of fuel management. Now this is most unlikely in RPT because there are SOP's giving the necessary checks and balances.

 

Now here's the interesting bit. I've conducted some 150 low levels over the past few years - and, not once have I received a CASA call about any of these pilots conducting illegal and/or, dangerous low flying. But, I have had several contacts in respect of other,(non LL trained) pilots doing beat ups and general hooning around. I think this re-inforces a point. If pilots are properly trained in these more high risk flight operations - they are less likely to misuse them. So, if the training syllabi, (GA and RAA), are expended to include items such as low level - it will improve safety and reduce the liability that may be searched out from some future event.

 

happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

A little bit like formal firearms training Poteroo

 

 

[reggie]

Try #44. Moral

 

 

[kaz3g]

You clearly haven't taken my advice and spent about an hours flying time getting advice from a public liability specialist or you wouldn't be so cocky; you are just about to try stepping into the fire with Major where your chances of being selected as a respondent just went a few hundred percent higher.

On the off chance you were serious, and for people new to the forum, the plaintiff's lawyers decide who is going to get the invitation, and that usually STARTS with the pilot, or

 

his estate, and goes on to all the people who had a duty of care and breached it, and they are highly unlikely to pick an Indian scam call centre, because they have to prove these people had a duty of care and breached that duty of care.

 

.

Yes, the plaintiffs' lawyers decide who is going to be joined, but they have to be very cognisant of the adverse costs risks of the scattergun approach. So they have to consider carefully whether a duty is, in fact owed and if so, to what extent.

 

In the hypothetical case where a person operates a class of aeroplane for which he holds no relevant licence performing acts for which he has no training or endorsement in circumstances where he is in breach of the requirements pertaining to safe operation amongst many others, it seems to me a difficult task for any lawyer acting for an interested plaintiff to attach a duty of care under Australian law to a training organisation or licensing body whose activities are not associated with any of the aeroplane, the licence or the type of operation in question. It is simply too remote in my view.

 

It would probably be a good idea to keep the discussions about the law general in nature because when they start getting personal they wander very closely to the proscription against the unqualified provision of legal advice contained in the Legal Practice Act.

 

Kaz

 

 

[dazza 38]

I don't the know anything about the deceased pilot. But i wouldn't think that a guy used to RAA type aircraft would just strap themselves into a RV6 an fly it without some sort if transitional training in it. (Maybe that is why he got a SPL) . Pure speculation on my part. I have flown with a mate in his RV7 and the performance is a big step up from the run of he mill RAA aircraft.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Firstly, for the protection of its members RAA should do everything possible to minimise unlawful and unsafe behaviour, through training, Safety Management System, and Compliance and enforcement system, while the person is under the control of RAA.In terms of doing this, for example CASA has required RAA to carry out certain safety duties and have an operating SMS since 2010.

 

While the ATSB investigation is closed, if someone has been financially disadvantaged by this crash, that doesn't mean the lawyers haven't started with press reports, the ATSB Report, Coroner's Report, and their own investigations relating to duty of care which would all come together in maybe 3 to 5 years time.

They probably lap up some of the very public conversations here, too.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

It may be apocryphal but I was under the impression Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft et al stopped manufacturing light singles when they were found to have potential liability for accidents, such as in the case of an untrained, unlicensed drunk who stole an aircraft and killed himself in the inevitable crash.(?)Humanity - the first species to legislate and litigate itself to extinction.

Fortunately, we aren't part of good 'ol USA ...yet

 

 

[reggie]

I don't get it, unfortunately a guy dies, fortunately no bystanders were. Now some people have to find someone else to blame and we all need more training. I would think everyone with a licence/certificate knows the rules. Why can't we learn from the unfortunate experience, have a good think about it and move on.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hopefully we have all done just that Reggie.

 

 

[reggie]

Sure thing David, just worries me what grief we are all going to be put through by the people who won't.

 

 

[Cooda]

Not yet Kaz

 

But committing aviation under CASA rules now appears to be a strict liability offence.

 

And our recent government was proudly proclaiming having passed tens of thousands of regulations as a minority government.

 

I'll be interested to seem how much red tape actually gets repealed by this current mob.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Not yet KazBut committing aviation under CASA rules now appears to be a strict liability offence.

 

And our recent government was proudly proclaiming having passed tens of thousands of regulations as a minority government.

 

I'll be interested to seem how much red tape actually gets repealed by this current mob.

Hey Cooda

 

I'm hoping the recent report to Government might see a change in the highly adversarial approach adopted by CASA in the last decade under McCormick.

 

I guess its a bit naive of me looking at the history of governments of both persuasions but I generally try to see the best in people . Certainly, no recent Minister would open his door to anyone other than the RPT lobby so the fact that a review has been conducted is an enormous change in itself.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Kununurra]

Whilst I agree with so many of the comments already posted on here is there a chance that we can have some positive posts about how to move forward from this tragedy and educate pilots of the future.

 

I have a vested interest in that subject.

 

And I am lucky to have a fantastic instructor who is teaching me all the right things to do. I already know what is the wrong thing to do and that is about life skills not just aviating.

 

Just saying

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, flying can be very safe if you study all the aspects of it thoroughly, and find a good instructor who will not just show you how to squeak in in the lowest number of hours, but show you the boundaries and teach you to be methodical, and if having studied all aspects, developed skills in flight planning subjects, navigation skills and mechanical skills, your behaviour is restrained, and you do not make avoidable mistakes.

 

 

[Teckair]

and educate pilots of the future.

I don't think education is the problem, I feel sure the pilot would have known he should not be doing that activity, you cannot protect people from them selves. This type of accident will happen again. Blaming RAAus is stupid. All we can do is learn from this and try to encourage responsible behavior.

 

 

[facthunter]

Teaching someone "the Right Thing" doesn't guarantee that is what they will always do. Individuals make their own judgements over time. IF hairy & scary flying gets admiration and they do it to play to the current audience you can't blame the people who taught him to fly "normally", years before.. Peer group pressure is a much more powerful tool, but often the cheer squad is more heard...

 

I've frequently been implored to do a NON-standard departure for the audience, which I have always resisted. BORING?? I guess so, but it would be illegal and I'm hardly setting a good example. I posted earlier. If you observe something dangerous being done in an aviation environment , you are REQUIRED to report it. People who have been in this position and haven't done so are as much responsible for the final result as anybody in the equation. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am guessing the pilot must have looked at the ground mid roll and panicked, pulled the stick back

 

 

[storchy neil]

reporting to raa waste off time get your bloody facts right

 

reporting to casa ditto

 

you blokes think I am joking be at the next agm I will produce facts in writing

 

neil

 

 

[M61A1]

Andy,Paragraph 1.

 

Today, if a person specifies that a load must be delivered by a certain time "or else" and that involves excessive speed or contravening driving hours limits he can face a criminal chain of responsibility charge, and some already have been convicted. If someone was killed the charge is likely to be manslaughter.

 

One of Australia's biggest company addresses this in terms of its employees by clearly pointing out its policy that regardless of whether an employee is called in to the office or required to travel anywhere the requirement is never to take precedence over complying with speed limits, and the policy is a non- query reason for not making a location at the specified time.

 

Paragraph 2.

 

Another major company had been taking the same line as you suggest and claiming they didn't have a duty of care issue if their dealers broke the law because they were independent businesses. After some legal advice on this the Company wrote to every single Dealer Principal attaching a contract which required his Dealership to comply with the law and maintain written records, which would be audited by the major company, and failure to do this was grounds for termination of the Dealer Agreement.

 

Paragraph 3.

 

This gets closer to RAA's responsibilities during the time its instructor is turning a pedestrian/car driver into a Pilot in Command.

That may be the case if you are running a business. Private pilots are not. Can you point out any particular case, where a driving school, examiner or transport regulator has been held responsible for a private driver's poor behaviour?