Recreational airfield Safety Operations.

[turboplanner]

If GA pilots are not obligated to do this then RAAus should not be obligated. If individual Airfield management committees who are best placed to manage their own liability exposure choose to do this then all who play at that airfield need to comply and not just some because of the colour and style of license/certificate.

You've said it yourself; neither you nor Yenn have seen anyone. So what? what about the rest of the Country?

 

I also haven't identified either of you as scholars of all the CASA documentations and rules. The claim that GA Pilots are not obligated to do this is just an assertion, nothing more, and may well be buried in the documentation or referred to obliquely like many other of CASA's policies.

 

You left out the part of the 4.01 clause that says....."in accordance with conditions set down by the owner of the field.

 

So all this bleating is about is that if more than one person is operating in the circuit someone has to take charge and represent the owner through his set down conditions.

 

That to me is prudent safety action, and if the CASA position is unclear then that is the one which should be fixed.

 

You have heaps of information on this thread to get the clear understanding that operating an airfield with no one in charge is going to end very badly if there's an accident.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

In Australia, governments have been very careful to distance themselves from claims; you are looking for an academic definition, but in the cases I've seen the lawyers have come after all the people who were responsible for the product and sold it, accidents can happen when the first piece of aluminium is delivered, although CASA are in a unique position of interfering in our business so could sometimes be a co-defendant right back at the design phase, and after the sale in the servicing and operation of the aircraft, and they can paint a big red target on their backs if they know something is wrong but still allow it to continue. The auto industry operates directly from the base Department which we did in the Department of Civil Aviation days, and that's the safest option for the government.

 

 

Kaz was talking about Victorian law and I'm not a lawyer and can't get into detail, but the plaque is a warning so the person getting into the aircraft can't claim they were expecting the same level of near absolute safety that Qantas have achieved; it does not absolve you from a negligence claim if you are negligent. I've previously posted my experience losing one case because we advertised an event as a family event and someone was injured, then losing another one because we were negligent but in particular hadn't made it clear the plaintiff had the right to sue.

 

If for example you were operating out of a property with forest all round the strip offering no place for a successful EFATO, and the passenger was killed as you came down through the trees, you could be prosecuted under the crimes act as a softener, and then sued for negligence on the grounds that you had a duty of care to ensure the airfield was safe.

 

However to get answers to your questions which carry any weight you need to sit down with a PL lawyer with a list of questions. In the briefings I've had, I've found the explanations reasonably simple.

 

I'm posting a story on the thread "Public Liability" about a Company Owner charged with Manslaughter after allegedly failing in his duty of care to maintain effective brakes, and a story on a huge Chain of Responsibility Fine.

Thanks, Turbs. Yes, the experimental warning placard and briefing, warn the passenger that the aircraft does not comply with normal safety standards, and that they fly in it at their own risk. This does not of itself address negligence. However it does establish that flying in the aircraft is a dangerous recreational activity; and by definition, the clauses in the Civil Liability Act means that no redress can be made in regard to negligence. So under those conditions, the passenger has no come-back, I believe.

 

I agree that flying from a site that allows no EFATO safe landing possibility would constitute negligence - but there's no exclusion clause in the Civil Liability Act to address that; if you're fool enough to get into an obviously dangerous flying machine, despite being warned, then you can't complain about the outcome, no matter what the cause - or so it seems to me to be the effect of the Act.

 

I think we've both put our point of view sufficiently on this; I don't propose to carry it further. Thanks very much for your input; it's been valuable.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

You've said it yourself; neither you nor Yenn have seen anyone. So what? what about the rest of the Country?.

Yes I acknowledge that and its why I asked the Question has anyone ever seen this done and if so in the context of this rule? Other than you, and even then you never identified if it was done as a result of the RAAus rule or because of the Airfield management committee, no one else has seen it, or bothered to answer if they have.

 

I also haven't identified either of you as scholars of all the CASA documentations and rules. The claim that GA Pilots are not obligated to do this is just an assertion, nothing more, and may well be buried in the documentation or referred to obliquely like many other of CASA's policies.

You may be right, it may well be in their rules and again no one else who read my post was either aware or could be bothered to answer. I went looking for it for in the 3 layers of rules and couldn't find it, but all that proves is if it exists its hard to find.........<Yawn>

 

You have heaps of information on this thread to get the clear understanding that operating an airfield with no one in charge is going to end very badly if there's an accident..

I absolutely agree that if we wait long enough then your claim will ultimately be true at least once perhaps multiple times, Given that history can be one of the predictors of future actions then on balance I may not loose too much sleep over it as probably "imminent" but I will make it a checklist item to see if I can readily identify a bunch of other about to be participants who I can share the responsibility for alerting us all somehow, that there are now 2 or more RAAus participants in action......Safety benefits will naturally flow

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

There has been a system in place, even though you "don't see anyone". Certified, licensed or publicly operated airstrips usually have an ARO (Airport Reporting Officer) listed in the ERSA. For example Emerald Qld has an ARO's phone number with the phone being held by the officer on duty. The ARO has been trained to maintain the facility in a safe state on behalf of the operator. Their duties may include running the strip regularly to pick up foreign objects, turning on the lights, scaring birds, enforcing parking rules, ordering people off the strip, replacing the windsock, collecting landing fees, locking gates, laying out closed strip crosses etc. The airport operator should do a risk assessment on the level and frequency of ARO services. In the case of Emerald Qld (RPTs, frequent charters, flying school) there is a 24/7 coverage on site. The same operator has the Springsure airstrip (no RPT, no lights, no School, occasional RFDS or visiting plane) and oversees it with a visiting ARO and locals keeping an eye on it.

 

 

 

So it isn't true that GA don't have to do it. The Airfield Operator provides this, rather than individual pilots electing someone.

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good post FV

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Blimey I'm really struggling here.......

 

You say "So it isn't true that GA don't have to do it. The Airfield Operator provides this, rather than individual pilots electing someone"

 

Sue that to me sounds very much like "GA pilots Don't have to elect a Duty Pilot like RAAus rules specify RAAus Pilots do, rather the logical airfield operator, who owns the risk, generally chooses to manage it mostly in the form of the ARO" which is all Ive argued the whole way.

 

Assigning the risk mitigation activity to a pilot subsection is illogical if there aren't mirror rules in every form of pilots RAO or CASA for GA that forces their pilots to honour the reality that the Duty Pilot may not necessarily be one of your own.

 

If you reread section 4.01 you will see that it applies only to RAAus pilots, or at a stretch to pilots who have a certificate rather than a license and the checks and balances that the appointed one must undertake are also only RAAus pilot and aircraft based....its illogical and unworkable!

 

I cant see why that is so hard for others to see, I must be a hopeless communicator I think

 

<EDIT? If folk "agree" by use of the Like system, would be nice to know in retrospect if they agree to the sentiment of the post, or alternately the last point that I'm a hopeless communicator......perhaps by having to add this bit I've answered my own question:scratching head:

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Andy, I agree; what the aerodrome operator does via its ARO, is to minimise its own liability. It does not really have anything to do with an incoming aircraft, until that aircraft is on the ground. The default requirement has to be GAAP. Nothing else is workable.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yep you are both spot on. It worries me a little how it is worded as it seems that it could be abused by someone with a too large an ego and cause more of a safety concern than be of help. An ARO is appointed but leaving a bunch of us cert holders to elect seems dangerous. Just my two cents worth

 

 

[turboplanner]

You are all looking for a prescriptive rule to operate by.

 

Prescriptive rules and regulations are dying out because the people who make them are liable for their advice, and they can never be comprehensive enough to cover all theoretical events, whereas duty of care can be assessed retrospectively based on what actually has happened.

 

I understand what you are looking for Andy, but unfortunately you are looking for a way that you won't have the duty of care for safe operation of an airfield.

 

While nothing happens nothing happens, but if someone is injured or killed you become the candidate who had a clear duty of care.

 

If the rule was was taken out of 4.01, the plaintiffs would still be asking "Who was in charge?, Who had the responsibility?"

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks, Turbs. Yes, the experimental warning placard and briefing, warn the passenger that the aircraft does not comply with normal safety standards, and that they fly in it at their own risk. This does not of itself address negligence. However it does establish that flying in the aircraft is a dangerous recreational activity; and by definition, the clauses in the Civil Liability Act means that no redress can be made in regard to negligence. So under those conditions, the passenger has no come-back, I believe.

The warning on the placard applies to the AIRCRAFT, not to you - this was discussed in detail in the Thread Public Liability #87 Noel Campbell v Rodney Victor Hay where the defendant succeeded because he warned the plaintiff about the risk and was not personally negligent in his actions. If he had been negligent, such as engaged in low flying/drunk/mistake during preflight etc the case would have gone off in a different direction.

 

If you are referring to the Queensland Civil Liability Act:

 

Clause 14 "Presumed to be aware" - the above case fits that

 

Clause 16 "No liability for materialisation of inherent risk that cannot be avoided by exercise of reasonable care and skill"

 

That doesn't absolve you from contributory or culpable negligence.

 

Clause 19 "No liability for personal injury suffered from materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the person suffering harm"

 

That doesn't absolve you from contributory or culpable negligence.

 

We both grew up immersed in the prescriptive era where we looked for a rule, and made sure we complied with it; if I can cross over into a daily life where I've become responsible for the prescriptive rules, so can you.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Ta - I see your point. In particular, Section 3.13(5) of the QLD Act makes it quite clear that some risks are non-obvious.

 

I wonder to what extent being flown in a glider - including a self-launching glider - that is maintained and operated in accordance with the GFA procedures, by a pilot holding the necessary GFA maintenance and pilot qualifications, is an obvious risk? In view of the precedent of Echin Vs STGC, I would suspect it to be an obvious risk; but in any case, it is something that can be included in the warning.

 

I do find it difficult to accept that the law has changed to the extent that abiding by established and defined procedures such as GAAP, and using a normal degree of care and vigilance, should not be a defence against negligence.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In terms of obvious risk there are degrees of what the person of reasonable intelligence ought to know, but you need a lawyer to explain that to you, but in general terms the more knowledge and training the person has that you are taking up the easier it is on you. I've heard lawyers use the term "A carpenter is expected to know how to use a saw safely".

 

A lot of companies now marshal you in through the office area, tell you there is a higher risk of being injured in their particular environment and require you to don a high viz vest, stay within marked lines, wait for your escort etc.

 

You probably need to explain what you mean in the last paragraph and also get a lawyer's advice.

 

From the cases I've been involved in abiding by established and defined procedures could be a defence; not abiding by established procedures could cost you the farm, as it did us in a case where a fire marshal aimed a fire extinguisher at a driver's airways to save his life, and had to admit later that the correct way to operate a fire extinguisher was at the seat of the fire again you need a lawyer because each case has its quirks and that's their job.

 

"using a normal degree of care and vigilance" that to me seems to be the issue for you - remember that Donoghue v Stevenson makes it clear that the event was an unintended accident, but nevertheless a duty of care was owed, and again a PL lawyer could give you a more precise guide.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Seriously, provided one operates with normal diligence, and provides the required briefing, it looks to me as though an experimental aircraft really only needs insurance for the Damage by Aircraft Act liability, plus third party. Apart from a few grandchildren, I doubt I'll be carrying anybody who is not a pilot.

I have seen in a few threads the comment that taking family is OK. If an insurance company is involved, and it has to pay out, it will exercise its right of subjugation to sue anyone, even close family, who can contribute. And the policy owner has no say in it.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ok so at this point we seem to have differentiated safety to liability exposure. At an uneducated basis it would surely be logical that if you are safer you are less liable, yet here we see a rule that IMHO does nothing for safety, and arguably works against it because only some participants if it's applied will comply and those that do might well erroneously believe all will apply and be unexpecting of the unexpected, from a liability perspective however all is good?

 

Pull the other one

 

Andy

 

 

[Chird65]

... but in general terms the more knowledge and training the person has that you are taking up the easier it is on you. I've heard lawyers use the term "A carpenter is expected to know how to use a saw safely".A lot of companies now marshal you in through the office area, tell you there is a higher risk of being injured in their particular environment and require you to don a high viz vest, stay within marked lines, wait for your escort etc....

Turbs,

 

I agree with what you are trying to get at, But...

 

I have been on building sites where we had to go through the office (after pre-attending the safety course the day before), wait to be escorted by one person, then had to wait 20 mins for an electrician to come and do the work of plugging in a Server. The electrician knew nothing of computers and could not understand dual power supplies or the need to plug 4 network cables in. He was out of his depth and 10 mins later took a 1 hour tea break. A carpenter may know a saw but may have no idea of how to work with a metal saw.

 

The butt covering gets in the way of work, and butt covering is what i see this regulation as.

 

Most of the comments on this RAA only regulation is trying to show that it mostly is not followed; nobody knows of an instance where not following has affected safety; PPL operations don't follow the same requirement; and there are other bodies who could claim that they have the right to be king, especially if they are the land holder.

 

The regulation is too prescriptive and does not enhance safety; either through non compliance or conflict with other users in aviation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have been on building sites where we had to go through the office (after pre-attending the safety course the day before), wait to be escorted by one person, then had to wait 20 mins for an electrician to come and do the work of plugging in a Server. The electrician knew nothing of computers and could not understand dual power supplies or the need to plug 4 network cables in. He was out of his depth and 10 mins later took a 1 hour tea break.

What you are saying here is that the person organised to do the job wasn't qualified to do it. The ATO system seems to be addressing that issue.

 

As far as time is concerned let's say the full hour and 20 minutes, what we used to do was run our own lines and connect power around the factory ourselves, but aside from the few who did get electrocuted, we often managed to overload the system, burn out equipment etc, and probably spent ten times that wasted time. Some companies are good at organisation, others are not.

 

A carpenter may know a saw but may have no idea of how to work with a metal saw.

I was only illustrating that if, for example you are asking someone to carry out a job, you have to provide a lot more detail and training than you do if he is a qualified professional.

The ATO also seems to be the preferred method of cutting through all the BS and exaggerated claims of skills that some people claim they have.

 

The butt covering gets in the way of work, and butt covering is what i see this regulation as.Most of the comments on this RAA only regulation is trying to show that it mostly is not followed; nobody knows of an instance where not following has affected safety; PPL operations don't follow the same requirement; and there are other bodies who could claim that they have the right to be king, especially if they are the land holder.

As much as RAA is often criticised, all they've done here is provide a method of exercising their duty of care. Even if they had said nothing, you would still have that duty of care when you were in the operating chain of responsibility of the airfield, so in fact they are giving you a defense mechanism. Many people have trouble grasping this principle which is the reverse of prescription.

 

Only a couple said they hadn't seen it being followed; the issue is whether the duty of care is being carried out, and on the occasions they talk about it appears it wasn't, but don't tar all the rest of us as walking away from our obligations. There are several instances of fatals in recent times where it could be said that if someone had been in charge, discharging duty of care the fatal would not have occurred; whether the lawyers go for a strategy of measuring against 4.01 remains to be seen.

 

PPL operations should and do follow the same requirement exercising duty of care and FV and I gave examples of specific locations.

 

The "right to be king" was a silly comment, however the rule does specify carrying out the owner's requirements

 

The regulation is too prescriptive and does not enhance safety; either through non compliance or conflict with other users in aviation.

The wording could be better, and could be changed to ensure more people understand what the intent is, but I see nothing wrong with the intent, since it is in fact protecting me if I comply. It enhances safety by providing a clear hierarchy of authority - someone is being allocated to take responsibility. they are not asking you to conduct a secret ballot or spelling out a formal process, although that's likely to come if Chain of Responsibility is legislated' and believe me you would prefer the present system.

To use non-compliance by others as a reason for breaching duty of care isn't going to help you one little bit, and I take it conflict with others would be where an RAA member was using a GA field, in which case you still have to resolve how you can discharge your duty of care.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

A Gliding club duty pilot's function is mainly to make sure the strip is clear for a glider in the circuit, and if the club uses winch launching, hold a launch if there's another aircraft anywhere near the zone used by the winch cable - and it's necessary, since in general, gliders can't go around. So he will keep an eye and an ear for incoming gliders, and hold a launch or order a stationary glider to be moved off the runway, as necessary. All that is entirely sensible and logical, and an obvious duty of care. But it does NOT extend to directing incoming gliders.

 

I can see that if there are a number of RAA aircraft all using the same field, some form of ground marshalling could be necessary. However, the old "all-over field" procedure that was in use at Moorabbin mainly resulted in a silent tower; the tower sprang into action if somebody was obviously in trouble, and held all takeoffs and ordered all other aircraft in the circuit to continue to fly the circuit at 1000 feet, until the excitement was over. The way the tower operated at Camden, with mixed gliding and power operations, was (and no doubt still is) an object lesson - but the Camden controllers are VERY experienced professionals. I would dread to see what a hash an amateur RAA controller could make of something like that.

 

So my point is, that the GAAP procedure is something that is drummed into every GA pilot's head, and at non-towered fields it works pretty well - so long as everybody can see everybody else. That can be very difficult if somebody's inbound, out of the sunset; and in a slow aircraft, you need eyes in the back of your head. The gliding world's approach to this is FLARM; but unless everybody has one and uses it, it's of little practical use.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Dafydd,

 

There is a time lapse in society between when something happens and when we finally comprehend, which is quite substantial. Some years ago after my brother told me it was the practice on farms to buy two Subaru Brumby Utes instead of one Holden or Falcon Ute, I decided to buy a Brumby for my limited farm ute. I couldn't get any pricing or literature out of the dealer, so I phoned Subaru. There was a short silence, and then "Sir, you do realise we haven't had the Brumby on the market for thirteen years don't you?"

 

The Gliding Club procedures may be cutting edge, but there's half a chance they haven't caught up any more than many of the people on here have, and it may be timely for a slight adjustment of procedures to make sure they are fully covered for all eventualities (which previously might have have been a government responsibility for example.)

 

I cut short any discussing on airfield specifics, because there are too many variations.

 

As I see it the people who would be affected most by this would be at small country or farm strips. As the traffic gets higher in towns, regional cities and major cities, it's likely that there would be a management hierarchy in place anyway.

 

The beauty of duty of care is that no longer does some overworked government department have to prescribe a rule for every event, sign off licences and approvals and pay for any omissions; the participants getting the most benefit, in this case Andy, have to do that, and whether they do it or dodge it, when there's a body lying on the ground it's the Andy's that get it in the neck rather than the taxpayer.

 

These days your glass half full gung ho chappy can lose it all out of the glass pretty quick.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I'm not claiming that GFA procedures are cutting edge, any more than GAAP is; the bit I object to is making the individual liable for any perceived shortcoming in the procedures. Following the procedures and keeping your eyes open should be all that duty of care requires.

 

There's a parallel, here; the wording of CAR 35 in relation to the approval of aircraft modifications was to the effect that if CASA or the Authorised Person was satisfied that the design of the modification complied with (the appropriate) aircraft design standard in force under the regulations, the CASA or the A.P. MUST approve the modification.

 

In other words, neither CASA nor the A.P. was held responsible for what the design standard did or did not contain; and the design standards are put in place by Federal parliament. This provided good safety, and limited liability. It satisfied the duty of care. However, it came to an end in June 2011, and was replaced by CASR 21 subpart M, which goes further - it requires the A.P. to certify that the design is suitable for its intended purpose - which in effect makes each A.P. responsible for the deficiencies (as may be perceived by a Court) of the design standard - which is a formula for anarchy and chaos, in the fullness of time. I refused to have my design authority automatically transferred to the new system, for that reason.

 

As a result of this change in the regulations, CAR 35 engineers are retiring as fast as they can afford to; and the cost of approvals has quadrupled. The effect on overall aviation safety has yet to become clear; by the time it does, the persons responsible for this change will have long gone.

 

The effect of unbounded Duty of Care will inevitably be to destroy private aviation. I don't regard that as a desirable outcome, but doubtless the airlines do. If I were 20 years younger, I'd consider migrating to New Zealand, they seem to have retained their sanity rather better.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Right o, so Tubs and I are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this unless I get dragged kicking and screaming into court as a defendant in an action. Lets for argument say that Tubs is 100% correct, after all the only law that is 100% logical and unchangeable are the laws of nature.......People can argue that common law is like that, but pollys have the right to legislate over the top of common law if they feel its in the best interests of the country.

 

So Tubs, you whip down to South Grafton for a fly as I do. For this scenario you are an RAAus member with an RAAus certificate flying an RAAus registered aircraft. You get there and there are a couple of guys working in the hangar and a few on the Verandah of knowledge reminiscing about a time when life was simple.......

 

Are they participants in the rules of 4.01 or perhaps even the intent of 4.01. I have no idea if individually they are members of RAAus, or PPL's or HGFA or ASRA......No one has their aircraft out yours is dragged out, preflighted and within minutes you intend to be airborne. Your plan is a flight to a few nearby towns, a buzz above 500ft down the local beach and then back for a few circuits, a couple normal and perhaps one or two flapless after all the flaps in the 230 are electrically driven and as such are not immune to failure.

 

As you taxi out you hear a GA aircraft inbound.......what are your obligations under your interpretation of the rule....what is it that you must do?

 

On return for the circuits portion I cant see anything much has changed on the ground, but then your in a J230 so pretty close to breaking the sound barrier while ever the engine continues to run and what you can see and what in reality might be may well be different. For the last 6 minutes you've been on the local CTAF after switching from the area frequency and haven't heard anything to suggest anything is happening, but in reality 6 minutes from the 10 mile inbound to overheads isn't long and the lack of radio calls isn't definitive...... To be safe you arrive overhead at 2000ft AGL, and let down into the circuit once your comfortable you know what is really happening... What are your obligations under 4.01 as written, and as you interpret them?

 

While in the circuit a gyro rolls out and makes the calls you expect and from those you see there isn't anything untoward or any obvious conflict, the GA plane is also about 5 miles out inbound and will logically join the circuit such that there will be at least 3 of you.....oh and a trike R2-3933 has called inbound as well, but they will as trikes do, take a month of Sundays to get here......but at that time there are a bunch of folks playing or about to play at South Grafton. What are your obligations and how will you fulfil them, if you choose to fulfil over the radio what will you say and how will you expect other participants to respond?

 

I ask in that I want to understand how practically you will fulfil the requirements such that you are confident that no Steeenking lawyer is going to shove CoR down your throat.......

 

After answering me, can you tell if if you have ever seen anyone fulfil their obligations as you have described, and seen other participants respond as you have suggested they will?

 

I know what I have posted is purely artificial, I mean I have you flying a Jab and Id guess the likelihood of that occurring is even less than the potential I ascribe to the risks you relate...

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not claiming that GFA procedures are cutting edge, any more than GAAP is; the bit I object to is making the individual liable for any perceived shortcoming in the procedures. Following the procedures and keeping your eyes open should be all that duty of care requires.

Around 1984 to 1986. following a fatality in a South Australian kindergarten, governments realised they they were the ones with the deepest pockets, and started to panic. The State Ministers for Sport had and probably still do, a meeting or two every year where they compared notes and legislation, and decided to get out of risky sports. I assume other Departments also had these meetings because in Victoria the Department of Labour and Industry, where nice inspectors would turn up at your factory and certify the weight carrying capacity of your cranes, chains and all sorts of safety equipment, and sign off a ticket for each one, was closed down virtually overnight and the old prescriptive standards disappeared. DLI used to inspect all speedways, and when I went asking the replacement Department for the specifications they had totally disappeared, and we had to start from scratch establishing crowd distance from the safety fence, safety fence performance and height, catch fence performance and height.

 

Unconscionably, in my opinion, some state governments just didn't tell anyone they were now responsible for their own conduct.

 

So what you are referring to is probably a result of this change in direction, and you could expect less and less procedures provided from government.

 

I agree that following procedures which are there is a must, but I think you need a lawyers insight into duty of care; keeping your eyes open yes, but go over and over Donoghue v Stevenson looking at unintended, foreseeable etc. Today we are held totally responsible for what we do, and there's no prescribed list, so we have to address all foreseeable risk, and that's a wider field than we previously had.

 

Culpable negligence is not something a conscientious person needs to worry too much about, because as Kaz said you would need to be reckless or know that what you were doing was wrong and you can insure against the rest.

 

There's a parallel, here; the wording of CAR 35 in relation to the approval of aircraft modifications was to the effect that if CASA or the Authorised Person was satisfied that the design of the modification complied with (the appropriate) aircraft design standard in force under the regulations, the CASA or the A.P. MUST approve the modification.In other words, neither CASA nor the A.P. was held responsible for what the design standard did or did not contain; and the design standards are put in place by Federal parliament. This provided good safety, and limited liability. It satisfied the duty of care. However, it came to an end in June 2011, and was replaced by CASR 21 subpart M, which goes further - it requires the A.P. to certify that the design is suitable for its intended purpose - which in effect makes each A.P. responsible for the deficiencies (as may be perceived by a Court) of the design standard - which is a formula for anarchy and chaos, in the fullness of time. I refused to have my design authority automatically transferred to the new system, for that reason.

I agree with you on this; I believe we should be able to design to a known standard hammered out by governments based on safety results over a period of time, however this is part of the trend I outlawed before, and we are now becoming legally liable for our designs.

 

Some people would argue that's fair, but in greenfield design no one gets it right, and the road transport industry is rushing down that path with Performance Based Standards (PBS)

 

So we still have the prescriptive weight and dimensional limits, but you can design a truck or trailer to carry more weight and for about $15,000.00 have it approved by authorised signatories (who carry the public liability), and the operator can carry maybe 5% more weight or volume, and that government will not penalise them.

 

So in spite of some vocal opposition by a few of us over the years we aren't winning the battle.

 

Again, you can insure against liability for this trend (your design).

 

As a result of this change in the regulations, CAR 35 engineers are retiring as fast as they can afford to; and the cost of approvals has quadrupled. The effect on overall aviation safety has yet to become clear; by the time it does, the persons responsible for this change will have long gone.The effect of unbounded Duty of Care will inevitably be to destroy private aviation. I don't regard that as a desirable outcome, but doubtless the airlines do. If I were 20 years younger, I'd consider migrating to New Zealand, they seem to have retained their sanity rather better.

The effect in the transport industry has been an improvement in safety probably because we are much more careful with what we put on the road.

 

With suitable insurance, and not deliberately breaching duty of care this should not see an end, albeit charges have to increase to cover the insurance, and a few people who have great knowledge by are short on academic qualifications may be squeezed out.

 

Unbounded Duty of Care is what we've got. I designed a fibreglass biscuit van on a bus chassis before all this, and with the help of a pattern maker an engineer and some laminators we delivered it 6 weeks later at a competitive price. About eight years ago I looked at building an ambulance using collateral from our system. It was easily doable, and better than what we have now, but the development cost would have been several million dollars. Time moves on.

 

When you take a closer look at the more relaxed laws in NZ and their results the grass is not so green; sure we can't do what we'd like to do, but I'm very happy with the lives I've saved over the years.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Right o, so Tubs and I are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this unless I get dragged kicking and screaming into court as a defendant in an action. Lets for argument say that Tubs is 100% correct, after all the only law that is 100% logical and unchangeable are the laws of nature.......People can argue that common law is like that, but pollys have the right to legislate over the top of common law if they feel its in the best interests of the country.So Tubs, you whip down to South Grafton for a fly as I do. For this scenario you are an RAAus member with an RAAus certificate flying an RAAus registered aircraft. You get there and there are a couple of guys working in the hangar and a few on the Verandah of knowledge reminiscing about a time when life was simple.......

 

Are they participants in the rules of 4.01 or perhaps even the intent of 4.01. I have no idea if individually they are members of RAAus, or PPL's or HGFA or ASRA......No one has their aircraft out yours is dragged out, preflighted and within minutes you intend to be airborne. Your plan is a flight to a few nearby towns, a buzz above 500ft down the local beach and then back for a few circuits, a couple normal and perhaps one or two flapless after all the flaps in the 230 are electrically driven and as such are not immune to failure.

 

As you taxi out you hear a GA aircraft inbound.......what are your obligations under your interpretation of the rule....what is it that you must do?

 

On return for the circuits portion I cant see anything much has changed on the ground, but then your in a J230 so pretty close to breaking the sound barrier while ever the engine continues to run and what you can see and what in reality might be may well be different. For the last 6 minutes you've been on the local CTAF after switching from the area frequency and haven't heard anything to suggest anything is happening, but in reality 6 minutes from the 10 mile inbound to overheads isn't long and the lack of radio calls isn't definitive...... To be safe you arrive overhead at 2000ft AGL, and let down into the circuit once your comfortable you know what is really happening... What are your obligations under 4.01 as written, and as you interpret them?

 

While in the circuit a gyro rolls out and makes the calls you expect and from those you see there isn't anything untoward or any obvious conflict, the GA plane is also about 5 miles out inbound and will logically join the circuit such that there will be at least 3 of you.....oh and a trike R2-3933 has called inbound as well, but they will as trikes do, take a month of Sundays to get here......but at that time there are a bunch of folks playing or about to play at South Grafton. What are your obligations and how will you fulfil them, if you choose to fulfil over the radio what will you say and how will you expect other participants to respond?

 

I ask in that I want to understand how practically you will fulfil the requirements such that you are confident that no Steeenking lawyer is going to shove CoR down your throat.......

 

After answering me, can you tell if if you have ever seen anyone fulfil their obligations as you have described, and seen other participants respond as you have suggested they will?

 

I know what I have posted is purely artificial, I mean I have you flying a Jab and Id guess the likelihood of that occurring is even less than the potential I ascribe to the risks you relate...

 

Andy

Let’s take a hypothetical look at the scenario you appear to have taken three nights to concoct to bring me down, and for the purpose we’ll assume you stayed in character and addressed your request “Dear Dorothy Dix”.

 

 

 

 

 

"Dear Goosechaser,

 

As an RAA member, required to abide by Operations Clause 4.01, I check and find South Grafton is a training field and has a tower.

 

Para 17 - It is my home field so I don’t have to report to the CFI or Duty Pilot

 

Para 2 – Since it is a training field the CFI of the resident Training Facility, has control, or in this case since there are two training facilities, they have to sort out who is controlling.

 

 

 

The workers in the hangar and on the verandah are not participating in your personal 4.01 experience, so you don’t have to worry about that. If one of them is a Pilot he may be going up, but the CFI is in control.

 

 

 

You prepare for the flight.

 

 

 

As you taxi out you hear a GA aircraft inbound. South Grafton has a tower, so you don’t have to take 4.01 action.

 

 

 

You return to the circuit (breaking the sound barrier).

 

 

 

If the tower operator has gone to sleep or is missing, the CFI is still your 4.01 control contact, and would advise you if a sinkhole has appeared in the runway.

 

 

 

In the circuit, when the gyro rolls out and the GA plane in 5 miles inbound and the trike is inbound later, they’ll be taken care of by the tower.

 

 

 

As for the “steenking lawyer” you might rethink that if you’ve got a broken back, and CoR legislation has not be introduced for recreational flying yet.

 

 

 

Have you ever seen anyone fulfil their obligations? “Yes, most of the time; there may not always be a formal “election”, but “can you take No1 and I’ll take No2” means the same.

 

 

 

Almost always the other participants respond and fit in, but now and again there is one who could do with a good smack in the teeth.

 

 

 

Since I don’t have a pilot’s licence, being a journalist, I would not be able to fly a Jaberoo (got that from another journalist).

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So because in your scenario there is both a tower and a CFI you need do nothing, nor say anything other than what you normally would anyway........

 

Lets try once more if you would with reality turned on....The J230 isn't close to breaking the sound barrier and South Grafton has neither tower or any training facility and no CFI present. As such presumably as an RAAus member you can not, like the rest of the participants just fly normally.... So what do you do, when and to whom in the scenario I presented.

 

Oh and lastly for the purposes of this thread unlike NES I'm not a goose chaser...rather a herder of cats..... That is much closer to the truth here! It may seem like 3 days of preparation.....but like the rest of the thread it really only happened in minutes...just seemed much..............much! longer!

 

As to the point that there may not be a formal election....if there isn't how will others know that you are indeed the appointed Monarch!

 

 

[turboplanner]

This was YOUR scenario, not mine, the one you posted at #72, the one I posted above and spent time addressing.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Indeed, and I acknowledge the clever way you modified or interpreted by adding info I did not provide, so that in answering you completely avoided having to answer the things I really wanted addressed......I hereby award you 10 points for cleverness....now about answering as intended unmodified and with South Grafton exactly as it is today. For further clarity and to avoid another goose chase....so to speak.....lets assume that there are no airfield committee rules to cloud the issue...........