Proposed L2 changes

[kaz3g]

.......basically every takeoff or landing accident would appear to contravene CAR92.

No, not at all. What the CAR does is make it very clear that if a pilot lands at a place other than at an aerodrome which has been authorised under one of the provisions, the onus is on the pilot to show that its use as a landing area meets the safety requirements. It is not unreasonable to suggest that flying into unknown wires demonstrates some form of failure on the part of the landing area and hence the pilot in regards to safety.

 

A pilot has a duty to ensure that he/she is well briefed on any hazards associated with a chosen landing area and to take those precautions necessary to avoid them. All is good unless you break something or someone! This is part of a duty of care that we all have and that Turbo has discussed at length. Non--compliance has statutory consequence.

 

This is not the case in a forced landing which clearly raises the defence of necessity.

 

I wasn't insinuating anything in my previous post. Neil has revealed a lot about what happened; enough to make one wonder. He has also criticised an alleged failure by RAAus to investigate issues he had with his repairer. So I asked two simple questions. If he doesn't want to answer them, that's his choice, but they are fair questions that beg an answer in my view.

 

Kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

I actually thought Neil was landing because of an engine problem and if so that is defence against the strict liability under CAR 92 is it not Kaz?

 

 

[facthunter]

Kaz will answer this with more authority than I will, David but I thought "Strict Liability" means You did it You cop it and no excuses. I strongly object to the RULES like these we operate under. You wouldn't accept these restrictions to what we call "natural Justice "any where else. (IF you had a choice). Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

the reason that i will not answer kaz is that it is totally off course off what this discussion is about neil

 

 

[ahlocks]

..I thought "Strict Liability" means You did it You cop it and no excuses.

No. Defences are still available to strict liability offences. Examples being mistake of fact, duress, extraordinary emergency, etc.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Struth ... When did the 'nasty' button become available?

 

This will be interesting from now on ... LOL

 

I promise to be nice ... Really I do ... ROFLMAO

 

 

[storchy neil]

no I have not been hit with any charges with any violation of aviation law

 

now no body else has crashed my plane to my knowledge

 

making insinuation that these things have happened

 

goes to show what I am saying is fact some here are so ignorant both casa and raa are not abiding by our rules

 

at no time have I Infered that the contact with the wires was not my fault as duty of care is with the pilot

 

what I have written in a previous post still stands it must hurting you

 

fact one casa have written to my solicitor not our problem raa problem

 

letter from raa to my solicitor not our problem

 

when we have lame l2 l3 walking away because of head office not doing their duty of care neil

 

and the answer is

 

 

[storchy neil]

I can take it as its the truth neil

 

 

[ahlocks]

Struth ... When did the 'nasty' button become available?

Dunno..

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

S

 

yes deastick there are a lot of bloody good lame"s l2 l3 l4 who are being brought down by some dipsticks that were not brought to account by past regulators off our officeyou are not the only one thinking is it worth it being an l2

deastick said such a shame that we are not allowed to contribute to the direction of our group

 

i totally agree with you but some off what daren is doing is already in our rules not all but some

 

I have been in personal contact with quite a few and like you they are astounded at what and how the repairs to my aircraft were carried out

 

what has got to me is the fact that I have all the evidence off none compliance off the lame l2 l3 that did the work and nobody from casa raa will look at it

 

if it is to big for RAA why have they not put it to casa

 

I did send a lot of paper work to raa photos included why have they not passed this on to casa neil

Storchy

I needed some answers to a few sticky questions from a techie and he did not want to reply to my emails so i kept sending them every hour on the hour. Took him a week to realize that i was not going away and expected him to do his job.

 

You should do the same to both the raa and casa.

 

 

[ahlocks]

(changed the original reply in case someone took it the wrong way DBI )

 

 

[David Isaac]

Dunno..

Luv you sweetlocks where have you been ... xxxooo ROFLMAO

 

 

[kaz3g]

I actually thought Neil was landing because of an engine problem and if so that is defence against the strict liability under CAR 92 is it not Kaz?

If it was an emergency, David, then the defence certainly applies... And it's a defence not an exhoneration.

 

If the landing was just because it seemed like a good idea there is no defence.

 

I guess the more interesting question is: "what happens if the pilot lands at an approved ALA which has a wire hazard but still collides with the wire because he/she fails to make inquiries of the operator?"

 

 

[kaz3g]

Kaz will answer this with more authority than I will, David but I thought "Strict Liability" means You did it You cop it and no excuses. I strongly object to the RULES like these we operate under. You wouldn't accept these restrictions to what we call "natural Justice "any where else. (IF you had a choice). Nev

Unfortunately, Nev, they are a pretty common regulatory device despite their infringement of the most basic legal right, the presumption of innocence..."He who accuses must prove".

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

No. Defences are still available to strict liability offences. Examples being mistake of fact, duress, extraordinary emergency, etc.

Hi Locksey

 

Just clarifying that it's not enough that there was a mistake of fact; the mistake must be both honest and reasonable to constitute the defence.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Then he/she is guilty under para (D) as I see it. Laws these days (especially aviation laws) are made to hang you after the fact, not help you..

 

If I decided to land in a paddock of my choosing I have to prove that it is safe to operate there. How do I do that ?.....visit the field on foot to assess approach and departure lanes, assess the surface and condition of field, check that there are no power lines, or if there are note their position and height above the surface, check landing and take off distances are sufficient per my aircraft's performance data...or talk to the field owner for all the above or a suitable pilot who has recently operated there, plus talk with the owner.

 

One example that really happened. Pilot wants to operate from countey road the following morning. Visits road, finds length is fine and all other parameters are suitable for the planned operation ...except one steel signpost needs to go, halfway down the intended strip. Pulls sign out of the ground and throws in nearby grass. Nearby farmer who has observed from nearby goes out after they leave and stands sign up again.

 

Pilot lands in the morning and strikes sign damaging wing. Is pilot at fault ?.....he satisfied the requirements of the regulation didn't he..... But was sabotaged by the farmer....

 

 

[kaz3g]

no I have not been hit with any charges with any violation of aviation lawnow no body else has crashed my plane to my knowledge

making insinuation that these things have happened

I wasn't insinuating anything, Neil. But you surely appreciate that I hear various alternative versions of the incident to your own including evidence put before a court? I'm quite satisfied by your answers and I'm certainly not making a judgment of you for the incident. I've done silly things in aeroplanes and elsewhere so I'm not throwing stones.

 

But since you have made an accusation I'll tell you what does concern me. Your anger at the perceived injustice you experienced is expressed in your comments about other people and organisations on this forum that could easily ground an action in defamation against you personally but also against the list owner who is the "publisher" of everything written here.

 

If you want to continue to take the risk that's fine for you, but it's not fine or fair for the list owner in my view.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

Then he/she is guilty under para (D) as I see it. Laws these days (especially aviation laws) are made to hang you after the fact, not help you..If I decided to land in a paddock of my choosing I have to prove that it is safe to operate there. How do I do that ?.....visit the field on foot to assess approach and departure lanes, assess the surface and condition of field, check that there are no power lines, or if there are note their position and height above the surface, check landing and take off distances are sufficient per my aircraft's performance data...or talk to the field owner for all the above or a suitable pilot who has recently operated there, plus talk with the owner.

 

One example that really happened. Pilot wants to operate from countey road the following morning. Visits road, finds length is fine and all other parameters are suitable for the planned operation ...except one steel signpost needs to go, halfway down the intended strip. Pulls sign out of the ground and throws in nearby grass. Nearby farmer who has observed from nearby goes out after they leave and stands sign up again.

 

Pilot lands in the morning and strikes sign damaging wing. Is pilot at fault ?.....he satisfied the requirements of the regulation didn't he..... But was sabotaged by the farmer....

You are quite correct, Maj. There is a heavy onus of responsibility on any pilot to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.

 

I know roads get used by aircraft in lightly populated areas but it's an activity fraught with legal dangers.

 

Not so long ago, a guy in a C172 out of Tyabb found the fog a bit more of a problem than anticipated and landed on part of the newly built, but at the time unopened, freeway on the southern Mornington Peninsula. Lots of police, CASA and goodness knows what other officialdom had to be present before he could depart into the bright blue that eventuated with the lifting of the fog many hours earlier.

 

Kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

The onus is always on the PIC to assure himself that an ALA is suitable for use by the particular aircraft he is operating and that includes seeking permission to use any ALA in Australia; not that many do and by NOT doing so, use the ALA at their risk.

 

If there is a wire strike risk at an ALA and you didn't seek permission or advice from the owner/operator and you struck the wire because you were not aware of it, you would have no defense and your insurer could deny the claim.

 

This has always been the case and I am staggered at the number of pilots who don't seem to be aware of this.

 

Of course a paddock can meet the requirements for an ALA; as long as the dimensions are suitable for the performance of the aircraft intending to use it. For example a 650-metre long paddock at 4,000' amsl could be a suitable ALA for a C182, but it would not meet the requirements for a C172.

 

Before you used a paddock you are supposed to drive a stiffly sprung vehicle across it at about 80KPH and as long as the ride is not too rough the field would be suitable. I have done this many times in 4WDs over paddocks that I intended to use.

 

Landing on any paddock without prior inspection brings with it inherent risks, risks which some are prepared to accept. Some aircraft, namely tail draggers are more suitable for this type of risky operation. For example you could bounce a C180 into a rough paddock, but that same paddock might collapse the nose wheel of a C182.

 

 

[storchy neil]

when we got a tec that was listening as to what I was up against he went missing

 

when we get a gm that starts listening he goes

 

not a good Idea to mention my situation neil

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

SStorchy

 

I needed some answers to a few sticky questions from a techie and he did not want to reply to my emails so i kept sending them every hour on the hour. Took him a week to realize that i was not going away and expected him to do his job.

 

You should do the same to both the raa and casa.

Is it that simple, Ozzie? In my case, after I was well and truly shafted, I dutifully followed all the guidelines available to me...and trusted that the authorities would have the decency to at least acknowledge my letters. I was eventually told they would be filed but ignored. It's very easy for clever people to misuse bureaucratic guidelines- and nobody seems to care.

 

 

[cherk]

when we got a tec that was listening as to what I was up against he went missingwhen we get a gm that starts listening he goes

not a good Idea to mention my situation neil

 

when we got a tech that was listening as to what I was up against .........he went missing

 

when we get a gm that starts listening .........he goes

 

not a good Idea to mention my situation. neil

 

Sorry Neil,

 

just needed the punctuation as your keyboard seems to be missing them ( . , : ; .......... just a few to help, cut and paste!)

 

 

[facthunter]

Neil, are these people leaving because of YOU? Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

Neil, are these people leaving because of YOU? Nev:roflmao:

 

:wink:must be I am not a nice person :happy dance:when I get on me hurly take em out:victory: sort of guy that I am

 

well just look at the time frame:loopy: :loopy:neil

 

 

[Teckair]

Gee Neil you shouldn't have made the GM leave he seemed to be going OK.